Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
If a calorie is a calorie, why do we see this?
saintor1
Posts: 376 Member
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oby.20460
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:
That's massive.
"Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper."
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."
11
Replies
-
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oby.20460Design 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."
It is likely that the low bf participants were not accustomed to such a low calorie breakfast and it impacted their NEAT.12 -
They were supposed to prepare the menus on their own, and although they averaged BMIs of over 32 and the calories are supposed to be 1400, the groups lost 8.7 lb and 3.6 lbs respectively, over 12 weeks.
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.25 -
It's intriguing, but one thing that stood out to me is they were only actually monitored for 3/7 days per week. So the other 4 were all self reported. And not provided meals, but suggested replacements. So it's all estimates. And with such small numbers, only 30 per group, it's easy to get big fluctuations.23
-
Only 30 people? Then it sounds like statistical anomalies and math threw off the data. Not a big enough study to be accurate. The data is just fluff. Especially if their calorie intake wasn’t controlled every day!21
-
I don't believe studies are highly accurate but I do feel if you eat less towards the end of the day as opposed to more, there is some benefit to that. Now, does it have anything to do with eating less overall?? I know if I ate less at night my caloric intake would diminish because that's when my munchies hit. So as far as studies go, I take some of them with a grain of salt. UNLESS you're able to back them up with even more studies that seem more closely monitored. Just my take on it.4
-
self reported/self prepared/under 1k people/ metabolic syndrome/
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...
8 -
Did both groups have the same maintenance cals. if one was higher (BF group) and ate the same cals as the other group they would be expected to lose more. the other possible reason, as noted before, is that bigger breakfast could lead to a higher NEAT.3
-
They obviously weren't tracking properly - at that size BMI, on 1400 cals per day, they should have been losing at least a couple of pounds a week! I lose weight on that!12
-
Did both groups have the same maintenance cals. if one was higher (BF group) and ate the same cals as the other group they would be expected to lose more. the other possible reason, as noted before, is that bigger breakfast could lead to a higher NEAT.
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).4 -
"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!0 -
Suezq72760 wrote: »"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.7 -
Did both groups have the same maintenance cals. if one was higher (BF group) and ate the same cals as the other group they would be expected to lose more. the other possible reason, as noted before, is that bigger breakfast could lead to a higher NEAT.
^^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."3 -
happysquidmuffin wrote: »Only 30 people? Then it sounds like statistical anomalies and math threw off the data. Not a big enough study to be accurate. The data is just fluff. Especially if their calorie intake wasn’t controlled every day!cmriverside wrote: »Did both groups have the same maintenance cals. if one was higher (BF group) and ate the same cals as the other group they would be expected to lose more. the other possible reason, as noted before, is that bigger breakfast could lead to a higher NEAT.
^^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.1 -
Aside from the question of the accuracy of the calories and differences in NEAT, I also wonder about body composition before and after weight-loss.
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.0 -
Aside from the question of the accuracy of the calories and differences in NEAT, I also wonder about body composition before and after weight-loss.
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.5 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »Suezq72760 wrote: »"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.
Thank you!! :-)0 -
i'd like to know how they determined that 1400 cal was the right amount of calories per day for each person - technically by BMI i'm obese but i can tell you that i lose weight eating 2000cal a day (as a female 5'3", 165lbs) so 1400 would be really low for me; but others who aren't as active 1400 could be the right goal3
-
Another study going the *same way*.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2013.863169Results: Thirty-six subjects completed the study (G1 = 18, G2 = 18). Both groups had significant improvements in body composition and metabolic parameters but G1 had enhanced results for weight loss (G1: −8.2 ± 3.0 kg; G2: −6.5 ± 3.4 kg; p = 0.028),
1 -
The full study doesn't seem to be available, but it appears to be about identical to the first in results, namely:
(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.)5 -
Btw, I'd be happy to engage in an actual discussion if you disagree with anything I've said. You so far don't seem interested in doing so, sadly.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K 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
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions