https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oby.20460
Design and Methods: Overweight and obese women (BMI 32.4 6 1.8 kg=m2) with metabolic syndrome were randomized into two isocaloric (1400 kcal) weight loss groups, a breakfast (BF) (700 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 200 kcal dinner) or a dinner (D) group (200 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 700 kcal dinner) for 12 weeks.
So 1400cal in both groups, first BF ate 700 / 500 /200 for breakfast / lunch / dinner and the D group ate the opposite.
And the kicker:
However, compared with the D group, the BF group showed a 2.5-fold greater weight loss
That's massive.
"Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper."
January 28, 2020 1:00AM
edited January 2020 11
saintor1
Member Posts: 331 Member
Member Posts: 331 Member
Replies
It is likely that the low bf participants were not accustomed to such a low calorie breakfast and it impacted their NEAT.
When I was 32 BMI (and even when I was somewhat lighter, as I did this for too long), I lost more like 2 lb/week consistently (and certainly at least 1.5/week) at 1400 net cals (and I'm slightly less than average height for a woman), so about 24 lb in 12 weeks (even 1.5 lb/week is 18 lb, twice as much as the faster group) -- far more than either of the groups. Why? I was a careful measurer, and I had a decent amount of NEAT since I live in a big city and walk a lot for daily life. I mention this, because I consistently ate dinner at 9 pm and it was my largest meal (my breakfast and lunch weren't so much smaller, however, but dinner was closer to 700 than 200).
In any case, what those numbers look like to me is not that there's some inability to lose weight eating a big dinner or some magic to a small dinner and big breakfast (my own results make me incredibly skeptical about that, especially when we look at the actual numbers), but that neither group was necessarily entirely compliant or counting perfectly, and the smaller dinner bigger breakfast group -- which was likely the bigger change, especially if you look at the food choices -- did a better job not overeating.
This is consistent with my existing suspicion that it's easier to not accidentally overeat when meals are MORE different than your norm, although I also think that reduces over time as you get familiar with what you are doing.
NEAT numbers can be very different based on weight...
and did it reveal CO?
and their summary says more
In summary, our results demonstrate that high-calorie breakfast shows increased compliance and is more beneficial than high-calorie dinner for weight loss, insulin sensitivity, and hunger suppression. Our study indicates that avoidance of large meals in the evening may be particularly beneficial in improving glucose and lipid profiles and may lead to reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Thus, in people affected by the metabolic syndrome, dietary recommendations aimed at weight reduction and prevention of high postprandial insulin excursions should include advice on time-of-day of nutrient intake in addition to the overall food intake. However, the long-term potential health benefits of high energy intake in the morning need to be assessed. O
So basically they are saying what the WL study in the states has said for years...people who eat breakfast lose and maintain weight more successfully than those who don't.
not ground breaking...
The calories weren't controlled. Both groups seem to have lost less than they should have at the calories provided than if they'd truly been compliant, but the big breakfast group was either more compliant or moved more, most likely.
It would be very interesting to see this study with truly controlled cals, but it's hard to do 12 weeks with such a study. It would then lead to questions about NEAT (we discussed a study recently that supposedly did find that eating breakfast increased NEAT, which offset the fact that people who skipped breakfast tended to eat less over the course of the day -- I don't know if anyone saw the actual study, so we were discussing assuming the account of it were true, which is always risky).
"It is likely that the low bf participants were not accustomed to such a low calorie breakfast and it impacted their NEAT. "
Pardon the ignorance here...what is NEAT? Thanks!
Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis
All the calories you burn throughout the day, when not exercising.
^^This.
Plus time of day of weigh-ins...plus the set number of calories allegedly eaten, plus - if it were this simple I'm pretty sure we all would have done this.
It's still about calories, not bogus 30 sample "studies."
Just for clarity it was over 90 and they were split into groups...not just 30 people in total.
Losing mostly fat versus losing fat and muscle mass would also change the weight loss rate, I presume. Muscle loss certainly seems a relevant factor considering the (theoretically) large deficit.
not sure if any of that matters mainly because the study was done based on BMI not people of the same weight.
"Design and Methods: Overweight and obese women (BMI 32.4 6 1.8 kg=m2) with metabolic syndrome"
so if you are 180lbs at 5 ft 3 eating 1400 calories 3 days a week vs 215lbs at 5ft 9 (both are BMI 32) the one at 215 will lose more weight...without changing anything else...because they are heavier burn more naturally.
Thank you!! :-)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2013.863169
(1) Both groups lost LESS than they should have if they were fully compliant; and
(2) The larger morning meal group lost more than the smaller morning meal group.
What I find odd in your reaction, OP, is the idea that there's something, what was it?, "massive" about the performance of the large morning meal group when in both cases it was poorer than one would expect just from actually eating at the deficit provided. Personally, it's hard for me to be too impressed by that when I've always lost what I expected for my deficit (and the rate of loss we are talking about, although perfectly respectable, doesn't strike me as, well, "massive"). My results, based on my own N=1, haven't seemed to vary based on eating time so long as other things were equal.
Now is it possible that on average (important, since not everyone is average) humans may have higher NEAT if they eat a larger breakfast or that humans not used to eating smaller breakfasts might be hungrier and cheat more? Sure. (Indeed, on average people do eat breakfast, and probably a good bit of the deficit calories early in the day with snacking included too, so not doing that might be so hard that they cheat and then still eat the planned dinner, while the people -- on average -- eating lots in the morning may find it easier to eat less in the evening as they were assigned.)
The bigger point is that unless the calories are actually controlled, you cannot use such studies to claim "a calorie is not a calorie." (You couldn't anyway, since what the sentence normally means is that calories from some foods don't operate like those from others, even if consumed and even if TDEE remains equal. Here the argument isn't that calories aren't the same, but that time of eating matters, even if the food choices are identical.)