Weight loss can be tied to when, not just what, you eat - CNN article

stanmann571 wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

The thing that cracks me up about articles like this is that I know from years of reading the forums that not only is meal timing irrelevant, but more to the point, there is an optimal way of timing your meals that's uniquely suited to each individual and that has more to do with satiety and compliance than it does with optimizing fat loss.

In the end, these articles that get all breathless about rates of fat loss really, really bug me because they lure people in with the ever hopeful promise of the "hack", and all of us who are in this for the long haul have long since seen our way past all the quick-fixes promoted in the world of weight loss. Since none of them matter because there's never really a finish line, what's the point of trying to rush to it by taking on a meal style/macro split/food choices/fill in this blank with the newest media promise for faster weight loss that doesn't suit your personal preferences and lead you to greater satisfaction, compliance, and satiety?

I read the article and part of the linked study and came to the conclusion that what it appeared to show was that people who actively and aggressively managed their satiety were less likely to graze/snack on less desirable food late in the day when will power starts breaking down.

Ah, there you go. I didn't read the article. It's funny. Delaying meal time helps me manage my satiety. Boom. Shows you can't make sweeping statements, CNN clickbait writers.

When I lived in Spain I started dropping weight, even though I was busy trying every dish they make.
Mornings were café, toast, juice.
The Big meal of the day was at 2pm, and you were given until about 5:30-6:00 to return to work. Walking after the meal was what most people did.
Tapas was from 7:00-11:00pm
Dinner was taken between 11:00 and 1:00am.
Dinner was normally a digestive biscuit very high in fiber, lightly sweet and with vanilla and cinnamon. If you are on a diet, you opt for a bowl of cereal with milk. (Yes, really).
What this does is have you eat most heavily when you are active so you tend to burn off calories as they hit your system.
The digestive or cereal was high fiber, high calcium and warming. It filled you up and sleeping was heavenly.
I lost a lot of weight there.

I don't get this idea that it's important to eat when you are active. Let's say I eat about half my calories at 9:30 pm (which I often did when losing weight) and then am basically sedentary until I go to bed around 11 and then get up at 5 am and go running (again, common when I was losing weight). How am I fueling my running? I could feel a difference depending on whether I had starchy carbs with dinner or not, so I suspect in part from my evening meal. More significantly, total calories in and total calories out matter, not when you consume them, because otherwise there seems to be the idea that activity not near a meal is fueled with, well, nothing, which would be a miracle.

I suppose it's possible you add fat at night (although if glycogen stores are not full, and they probably are not if you have been eating in a deficit, I doubt it) and then burn it in the morning (you will burn some fat, in fact you typically burn fat when sleeping because you are not active but still need calories to live on), but the question is, who cares--the concern is whether you put on net fat, and you couldn't at a deficit, regardless of meal timing.

I eat 75% of my calories after 3 pm and have been maintaining with no issues. I even eat past 10 pm.

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

rdridi12 wrote: »

Meal timing matters in terms of weight loss vs. fat loss which ARE very different. Your body doesn't function on a daily, weekly or monthly cycle. It works second by second, moment by moment, in real time to change your body. I am not saying its as dramatic as people make it out to seem but if you find the right meal timing FOR YOUR BODY then you will see better results than doing it differntly. Some people (like myself) never feel hungry in the morning, so guess what, probably shouldn't force yourself to eat in the morning. My gf on the other hand always seems famished in the mornings so she eats a high protein breakfast. I am not saying that the study is right or wrong, I am just saying that just hitting calories for the day/week/month, will cause WEIGHT LOSS no matter what. Hitting calories based on the appropriate times (when you feel hungry, post workout, pre workout, etc.) will AID in a more efficient FAT LOSS in addition to weight loss.

Because it affects satiety, adherence and workout performance. Not because eating at any particular time conveys any metabolic advantage in terms of weight/fat loss.

It does have an effect on fat loss. It's easy to say yeah I lost X amount weight so I must be only losing fat when I save most of my calories for the night and eat whatever I want. But when you are actually diligent and pay very close attention to your weight, LBM, and body fat percentage you will find that you will lose weight either way and it will be relatively similar, but you will have more FAT LOSS if you appropriately time your meals and eat more nutrient dense foods. If your sole goal is to lose 20 pounds and you don't care if you lose muscle or fat then just eat 500 cal a day to satisfy your mind, you will lose a good amount of fat no doubt, but you will also lose a noticeable amount of muscle.

Most people would not like the outcome of that.

Meal timing matters.

I will let my shift workign husband in on the secret then...

I lost more weight while in the military doing 24 hour days etc then ever before...and trust me it was the fat going not my LBM...

we grabbed what we could eat when we could...time be damned...so tell me again how meal timing matters..