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?
Replies
-
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.
Thank you, didn’t know it was 90 total. But that’s still only 45 or 30 people per group, so the data is hardly relevant. Needs to be 200+ people each for control group and differing groups, so that each person only contributes half a percent to each category of data. Just my opinion. That way the math doesn’t skew the data out of whack, and less of a chance that a few crazy outliers skew the data too.
3 -
2.5-fold greater weight loss is very misleading because it could be 1 lb lost vs 2.5 lb lost. Which is negligible. I’m not saying that’s the actual amount though... didn’t read the study. Or 4% of body weight lost vs 10% lost. But that’s on average, and only studying 90 people total. And calories weren’t monitored every day. Was water weight taken into account too? Time of day weighed? There are too many factors that can throw things off.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."
6 -
All participants were given the exact same allotted calories regardless of their height, weight, activity level etc? How is that controlled?7
-
estherpotter1 wrote: »lettuce calories would be better than weight loss than fat or sugar calories.
@estherpotter1 while this can vary from person to person the question I now ask what will this or that type calorie do to help or harm the make up of my gut microbiome?
Unless it is planned obesity there has to be some type of health issue for obesity to occur. The gut microbiome is one of many factors in mammal health.
In my case for 40 years after each weigh loss I would sooner or later have a 100%+ regain so at 63 I said to heck with weight loss and started working to get more healthy and have better lab results. That was in 2014 when I changed my Way Of Eating without any weight loss objective and eating to never go hungry I accidentally lost 50 pounds without considering how many calories I ate but focused on eating calories that gave me better health and better health markers on my lab tests. That is how I proved in my case the WOE make up of the right kind of calories (that varies from person to person) was more important to me than the number of calories. I did not know about the gut microbiome at that time.
The freedom to eat all I want has changed me both physically and mentally for the better. In 2020 the 50 pound weight loss has not return since it went away in 2015. My new WOE quickly reduced my pain from Ankylosing Spondylitis (arthritis) starting in 2014 so I was able to avoid starting on Enbrel injections for pain management.
If interested read up on the ways one's gut microbiome can change what our bodies do with a calorie after we eat it.
Calories are always a factor but seldom ever the primary cause of long term weight gains or losses.
https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190927135200.htm
2 -
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0256/bf06835c5fc0d3b8eaa9f1e32f46934f3b69.pdf
I am in no way advocating the red wine diet, and the study itself points out that for social drinkers alcohol calories should be treated as normal calories. Nevertheless, it would appear that a calorie is not always a calorie.
I also recommend a new book just out by a bariatric surgeon who has been exploring why people become overweight and obese and has some very interesting things to say:
Why We Eat (Too Much) by Dr Andrew Jenkinson2 -
SnifterPug wrote: »https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0256/bf06835c5fc0d3b8eaa9f1e32f46934f3b69.pdf
I am in no way advocating the red wine diet, and the study itself points out that for social drinkers alcohol calories should be treated as normal calories. Nevertheless, it would appear that a calorie is not always a calorie.
I also recommend a new book just out by a bariatric surgeon who has been exploring why people become overweight and obese and has some very interesting things to say:
Why We Eat (Too Much) by Dr Andrew Jenkinson
I don't think the authors of the alcohol study are arguing that a calorie isn't a calorie. We're talking about a very specific set of circumstances (that I hope are beyond the situation of most people seeking weight loss advice here) and a very small group of people (fourteen) and I believe they're arguing at least part of the impact can be attributed to the damage chronic alcohol abuse does to our body's ability to utilize fat as energy.
Noting that our bodies can be damaged and less able to utilize certain nutrients doesn't invalidate how energy works. This is actually a principle in certain weight loss surgeries and is a known side effect of other illnesses or surgical procedures.6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »estherpotter1 wrote: »lettuce calories would be better than weight loss than fat or sugar calories.
@estherpotter1 while this can vary from person to person the question I now ask what will this or that type calorie do to help or harm the make up of my gut microbiome?
How is this relevant to the topic of the thread?
In any case, lettuce (which does not have "lettuce cals" only "cals") is typically a positive thing for the gut microbiome (based on what we currently know, which isn't that much).
You cannot generalize about how all sources of fat or all sources of carbs affect the microbiome, but on the whole it's typically believed that getting a wide variety of plant foods is positive for the gut microbiome and tends to lead to greater diversity.Unless it is planned obesity there has to be some type of health issue for obesity to occur.
Nonsense. But also irrelevant to this thread, please start your own to discuss that topic.7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »estherpotter1 wrote: »lettuce calories would be better than weight loss than fat or sugar calories.
@estherpotter1 while this can vary from person to person the question I now ask what will this or that type calorie do to help or harm the make up of my gut microbiome?
Unless it is planned obesity there has to be some type of health issue for obesity to occur. The gut microbiome is one of many factors in mammal health.
In my case for 40 years after each weigh loss I would sooner or later have a 100%+ regain so at 63 I said to heck with weight loss and started working to get more healthy and have better lab results. That was in 2014 when I changed my Way Of Eating without any weight loss objective and eating to never go hungry I accidentally lost 50 pounds without considering how many calories I ate but focused on eating calories that gave me better health and better health markers on my lab tests. That is how I proved in my case the WOE make up of the right kind of calories (that varies from person to person) was more important to me than the number of calories. I did not know about the gut microbiome at that time.
The freedom to eat all I want has changed me both physically and mentally for the better. In 2020 the 50 pound weight loss has not return since it went away in 2015. My new WOE quickly reduced my pain from Ankylosing Spondylitis (arthritis) starting in 2014 so I was able to avoid starting on Enbrel injections for pain management.
If interested read up on the ways one's gut microbiome can change what our bodies do with a calorie after we eat it.
Calories are always a factor but seldom ever the primary cause of long term weight gains or losses.
https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190927135200.htm
I'd love to hear your explanation for the bolded. If calories aren't the primary cause of weight gains or losses, what is? That's like saying that money isn't the primary factor in whether you have savings or debt. If both cases, if you have an excess, you will end up with weight gain, or savings, and if you don't have enough you will have debt, or weight loss. I'm not saying there aren't other factors that effect how much money a person makes, or how many calories a person consumes, but in the end, gain or loss is solely determined by that one factor.19 -
My main issue with these results is that they don't account for food weight at all. When I eat dinner late I weigh more in the morning regardless of whether I ate more or less calories that day. Sometimes the difference can be as much as 4-5lb depending on the type of food I ate.
The people who ate a larger breakfast had an inherent advantage in supposed weight loss because when they woke up, they (allegedly) hadn't eaten more than 700 calories in the past 16 or so hours. Their bodies had plenty of time to use or get rid of the food they ate, but the large dinner group had eaten 1200 calories in that time frame. There was no point in the day where they hadn't just eaten or eaten less than 700 calories in the past 16 hours. There was simply no comparable time for them to weigh in.1 -
THIRD is a charm. Another study going the same way, from Italy this time.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262189768_Morning_Meal_More_Efficient_for_Fat_Loss_in_a_3-Month_Lifestyle_InterventionOur study revealed that a lifestyle intervention with more energy intake in the first part of the day had a higher impact on weight and fat reduction
Welcome to circadian cycle. Here is number FOUR, from France this time. And a possible/reasonable explanation why a calorie eaten in the evening has NOT the same impact as in the morning.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14737911_Circadian_variation_of_diet-induced_thermogenesisThe present study showed a clear difference in the EE responseto the same meal. depending on the circadian stage during whichit was consumed.
Again *massive*. It takes +50% more energy to process a calories in the morning than in the evening, and +25% in the afternoon than the evening.
FIFTH one.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280588713_Is_the_timing_of_caloric_intake_associated_with_variation_in_diet-induced_thermogenesis_and_in_the_metabolic_pattern_A_randomized_cross-over_studyThe same meal consumed in the evening determined a lower RMR, and increased glycemic/insulinemic responses, suggesting circadian variations in the energy expenditure and metabolic pattern of healthy individuals.
SIXTH one.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oby.21189The circadian system plays a dominating role in the morning/evening difference in early DIT and may contribute to the effects of meal timing on body weight regulation.
There is no mistake. This is of the highest interest, IMO.
According to these SIX highly documented studies, majority (like 80%) of the calories should be eaten before afternoon.
3 -
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."
Replying to your title question:
We see all kinds of things. How we evaluate them, and what conclusions we draw from them, is a matter of reasoning, buttressed by education.
How we individually eat may be guided by research and reason, but happy compliance is, for most people, a much more important factor than most research findings about timing, when it comes to weight managemement. (One might even reasonably interpret this particular research study as saying something more meaningful about compliance than about timing, with consideration of its methodological limitations, taken in context of the larger body of research in the field.
)
Bottom line: If a big breakfast/small dinner lead to success for you, that's what you should do. I'll keep eating right up to bedtime, and maintaining weight just fine.
Happy compliance > nutrient timing. And none of this supports the idea that calories are irrelevant: They all - theoretically - restricted calories significantly, and lost weight . . . free-living, so at varying levels of activity (and most likely varying levels of compliance, as well).
Soo much this. Especially that bolded statement.
I eat most of my calories from 6pm-3am. I notice absolutely no difference how I spread out my calories if I move my snacks around at different times. I lose weight as planned. I love eating a 1000+ cal dinner plus a snack/desserts, that has always worked best for me.7 -
THIRD is a charm. Another study going the same way, from Italy this time.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262189768_Morning_Meal_More_Efficient_for_Fat_Loss_in_a_3-Month_Lifestyle_InterventionOur study revealed that a lifestyle intervention with more energy intake in the first part of the day had a higher impact on weight and fat reduction
Welcome to circadian cycle. Here is number FOUR, from France this time. And a possible/reasonable explanation why a calorie eaten in the evening has NOT the same impact as in the morning.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14737911_Circadian_variation_of_diet-induced_thermogenesisThe present study showed a clear difference in the EE responseto the same meal. depending on the circadian stage during whichit was consumed.
Again *massive*. It takes +50% more energy to process a calories in the morning than in the evening, and +25% in the afternoon than the evening.
FIFTH one.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280588713_Is_the_timing_of_caloric_intake_associated_with_variation_in_diet-induced_thermogenesis_and_in_the_metabolic_pattern_A_randomized_cross-over_studyThe same meal consumed in the evening determined a lower RMR, and increased glycemic/insulinemic responses, suggesting circadian variations in the energy expenditure and metabolic pattern of healthy individuals.
SIXTH one.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oby.21189The circadian system plays a dominating role in the morning/evening difference in early DIT and may contribute to the effects of meal timing on body weight regulation.
There is no mistake. This is of the highest interest, IMO.
According to these SIX highly documented studies, majority (like 80%) of the calories should be eaten before afternoon.
So I haven't gone through all the studies in fine detail, and yeah sure all these studies show a difference.
BUT: ALL the studies are done with very small numbers, the first one was 36 subjects, and the rest were fewer. That is not enough to find a true statistical difference.
Going into study three (your numbering)
There were 36 participants.
Group 1 lost 8.2 kg on average (+/-3.5kg) with an average starting weight of 94.6kg. Percentage lost of starting weight: 8.7%
Group 2 lost 6.5kg on average (+/-3kg) with an average starting weight of 88.2kg.
Percentage lost of starting weight: 7.5%
The difference in percentage between the weight loss in the two groups is 1.5%. That is not a statically significant difference.
The best thing you can say is this study conclusively shows that restricting calories causes weight loss. I personally prefer to snack at night and go to bed feeling satisfied. A 1.5% difference in weight loss isn't enough for me to change my eating habits.
And frankly the difference is that you "may" lost 1.5% faster, so realistically if you are losing 1lb a week, then it may take you an extra week or two at the most to lose that pound. I mean if you want to change your entire eating habit for 1.5% difference, go for it. You do you. No one cares.14 -
I concede it is possible that meal timing makes some small difference to weight loss
It is possible it doesnt too - but for arguements sake lets say it does.
It would only be small but lets say its there.
What relevance does this have for real life??
Im sure we've all heard the saying The best exercise is the one you actually do.
likewise the best calorie deficit plan is the one you actually do - and that will be with whatever meal timings suit you
So it seems to me a bit like jogging burns more calories than swimming - well, maybe it does but if you like swimming and have a pool but hate jogging and wont actually do it - what is the relevance for your real life?27 -
I knew those were the studies that you were going to trot out once the second post made it clear you had some agenda. You either got them from Nutrition Facts/Greger's new book or else one other site I found easily on the internet talking about just those six studies in that order.
I will note again that people raised issues with the studies -- that apply to these others too -- that you did not engage with or address, which I find revealing, but also disappointing.
Significantly, without a metabolic ward study the claim that time of day one eats alone is what makes the difference (rather than it affecting either the amount one eats or NEAT, on average) cannot be made, and since that's the whole premise of the first post, that's a major problem.
There's also the issue of "on average" and the fact that -- contrary to your confused view that the results for the early eaters were "massive" -- they in fact performed WORSE than one would expect someone using MFP would, no matter when that person eats.
Finally, what I consider the funniest thing about this, the title of the thread itself is incorrect even for whatever point you think you were making. So many people want to say "no, a calorie is not a calorie" (usually because of a misunderstanding as to what that really means) that they leap on any argument to say that calories differ depending on the food. Here, though, the food is supposed to be the same (although it is not), so the argument is that the BODY deals with calories differently depending on the time (which I think is true to some degree, although I don't think it is that significant if at all to weight loss, given the complexities of human behavior and all the other factors). But in any case if that is true, it simply is not saying that calories are not the same; it's basically saying that humans increase calories out when eating at certain times (which we can choose to do independent of that also).
I'll note that Greger makes the same mistake in his book in the discussion of this, suggesting that it somehow means a cal is not a cal, which increases my suspicion that this is cribbed from that. And if so -- despite me being skeptical of Greger and agreeing with those who say he cherry-picks studies that fit his own biases -- I think it's only fair to Greger to point out that unlike you he says that stuff like this is interesting, but basically the cherry on the cake. One absolutely should not make it -- rather than what one is eating (which includes calories) -- the focus for weight loss.
Hmm.19 -
paperpudding wrote: »I concede it is possible that meal timing makes some small difference to weight loss
It is possible it doesnt too - but for arguements sake lets say it does.
It would only be small but lets say its there.
What relevance does this have for real life??
Im sure we've all heard the saying The best exercise is the one you actually do.
likewise the best calorie deficit plan is the one you actually do - and that will be with whatever meal timings suit you
Good points, but I don't actually expect a response from OP.
Hope I'm wrong!3 -
SnifterPug wrote: »https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0256/bf06835c5fc0d3b8eaa9f1e32f46934f3b69.pdf
I am in no way advocating the red wine diet, and the study itself points out that for social drinkers alcohol calories should be treated as normal calories. Nevertheless, it would appear that a calorie is not always a calorie.
I also recommend a new book just out by a bariatric surgeon who has been exploring why people become overweight and obese and has some very interesting things to say:
Why We Eat (Too Much) by Dr Andrew Jenkinson
For the first part on alcohol, I believe I've heard Lyle McDonald discuss some of the papers cited by the linked one. Of note is that the calories "count less" in alcoholic women than in men. The best explanation is actually that at a lighter weight, able to carry less alcohol, and having just different social behaviors in general, women are more likely to end up not eating, or even throwing up while blanked out drunk.
Going into the study, Lieber himself concludes:
So sure, do people with a damaged liver need more calories? Looks like it it. Calories in represents digested, not ingested calories. A calorie isn't a calorie if you're calling them eaten when someone throws up either.The energy loss seems to result either from the liver damage produced by alcohol and the consequent inefficient utilization of fat as well as other nutrients, and/or the energy wastage associated with the induction of microsomal pathways that results from the chronic consumption of substantial amounts of ethanol.
As for Jekinson, I'm not sure what his book says, but isn't bariatric surgery predicated on the idea that the amount of food matters to weight? Most weight loss surgery causes an inability to take in large amounts of high fiber foods, the ones usually agreed upon as "healthy", good for you, and "necessary" for weight loss by people claiming clean eating is needed, not counting calories.4 -
paperpudding wrote: »I concede it is possible that meal timing makes some small difference to weight loss
It is possible it doesnt too - but for arguements sake lets say it does.
It would only be small but lets say its there.
What relevance does this have for real life??
Im sure we've all heard the saying The best exercise is the one you actually do.
likewise the best calorie deficit plan is the one you actually do - and that will be with whatever meal timings suit you
So it seems to me a bit like jogging burns more calories than swimming - well, maybe it does but if you like swimming and have a pool but hate jogging and wont actually do it - what is the relevance for your real life?
Exactly. When I eat a big breakfast and a light dinner, I don't feel as satisfied and happy. I *like* looking forward to a larger dinner and if I'm too hungry when I go to sleep, I can't rest well. So even if I did get a 1% boost to my weight loss eating that way, I'd struggle with compliance and potentially cancelling out the benefit with extra evening snacks (the way I eat now, I'm never tempted to snack at night).14 -
Welcome to circadian cycle. Here is number FOUR, from France this time. And a possible/reasonable explanation why a calorie eaten in the evening has NOT the same impact as in the morning.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14737911_Circadian_variation_of_diet-induced_thermogenesisThe present study showed a clear difference in the EE responseto the same meal. depending on the circadian stage during whichit was consumed.
Again *massive*. It takes +50% more energy to process a calories in the morning than in the evening, and +25% in the afternoon than the evening.
That is not what EE means. EE is not the energy to process calories. EE is Energy Expenditure. Far more than digestion, called TEF, the thermic effect of food/feeding, EE's primary component after BMR is NEAT. People eating earlier in the morning may indeed move more. That isn't a violation of the calorie model of obesity.
At some point you're steps away from arguing calories eaten on a treadmill are different from other calories...14 -
I think with enough people and enough time energy balance will drive fat loss regardless of the how large one meal is in relation to another...2
-
Living, breathing, thinking, relatively intelligent adults can try a variety of techniques in an attempt to find what works for THEM. For me, I tried the breakfast like a KING, lunch like a PRINCE and dinner like a PAUPER and it didn't work. In fact, a large breakfast set the stage for feeling like it was time to eat ALL DAY LONG. Finally, after much experimentation, I fell upon Time Restricted Feeding ( a type of intermittent fasting), where I only eat between 10 AM and 6 PM. And WHAM! The weight started coming off. So in essence, as long as it isn't insane, like eating only apple cider vinegar and walnuts for the rest of your life, experiment until you find something reasonable that works for you.12
-
Living, breathing, thinking, relatively intelligent adults can try a variety of techniques in an attempt to find what works for THEM. For me, I tried the breakfast like a KING, lunch like a PRINCE and dinner like a PAUPER and it didn't work. In fact, a large breakfast set the stage for feeling like it was time to eat ALL DAY LONG. Finally, after much experimentation, I fell upon Time Restricted Feeding ( a type of intermittent fasting), where I only eat between 10 AM and 6 PM. And WHAM! The weight started coming off. So in essence, as long as it isn't insane, like eating only apple cider vinegar and walnuts for the rest of your life, experiment until you find something reasonable that works for you.
Yup. It seems so ridiculous to me to insist that there's one right way of eating that you must fit yourself into vs. experimenting or going with your intuition to figure out what will be the easiest for yourself and your lifestyle.
(I also cannot explain how very much I hate the phrase -- which I know you were not the one to introduce here -- breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a pauper. Among other problems with it, it's dumb because calorie differences aren't the main difference between the meals of the rich and poor, certainly not these days.)
Years ago, the first time (of 2) that I lost weight, the prevalent advice was (1) breakfast is the most important meal of the day; and (2) eat lots of mini meals to prevent hunger and keep the metabolism revv'd up. I hadn't been eating breakfast and decided to try it, and for me that worked well, since it was an easy way to get in nutrient dense foods, kept me happy when I ate only a small lunch, and also helped because I liked to work out in the morning often and I like eating soon after I workout. Other people say that eating breakfast is a disaster for them, because they then are much more hungry all day, and the food they eat at breakfast feels like a waste since they don't enjoy it. I respect that and their understanding of their own preferences and what works for them. (I'll note that in addition to the studies that OP seems obsessed with, and that Greger focuses on in his new book (in a small part), there are other studies that indicate that adding breakfast may mean many more cals for some, and not evened out by any supposed effect on metabolism.)
On the other hand, I ignored the advice about eating lots of mini meals since I knew that when I eat lots of times I tend to feel less satisfied and want to eat more, even though I will eat many more cals. The thought of cutting cals and increasing feeling times felt unbearable to me. What I did instead was eat a small breakfast, a small lunch, and a big and somewhat late dinner. I lost fast (I wasn't counting cals), probably faster than I should have given the weight I had to lose.
After maintaining for some time eating at that pattern, I started to gain (largely because I cut activity, started snacking more, and then struggled with some depression and various compensations for giving up drinking).
When I started again (MFP), I went back to the 3 meals only pattern that had worked for me, but this time found that most days I preferred eating about equal cals in each of my three meals. My losses felt pretty much identical to the first time.
Since being at maintenance, I've found myself struggling with mindfulness from time to time, going off the rails occasionally due to stress (work and personal), and basically yoyoing around 5-10 lbs from my original goal (which is still a perfectly fine weight). In deciding to seriously start trying to lose a bit more again (and more importantly focusing on activity and strength), I decided to try some different things to see if a different pattern would be easier for me. One thing I tried was no breakfast (as I am fine not eating it and do find I don't eat much more for dinner or lunch when I don't). I didn't like that since I hate not being able to eat until several hours after I run or do other cardio, and it's easiest for me to run in the morning, so...
I then decided to try eating dinner early (which means at work Monday through Thursday, since I normally don't get home until 8). I thought I would hate this (and many people would find it ruins family time), but so far I love it, and rather than being hungry in the evening I find it makes my evenings more relaxing. I still get to go out or have a great homemade and eaten at home dinner with others on Friday through Sunday, when I normally ate earlier anyway (since if we eat dinner out it is normally before a play or concert or movie). So I guess I am eating more in line with the circadian rhythm now, just by happenstance, although I personally still like my meals to all be about the same size (or a larger early dinner if I go out). I see no meaningful effect on my rate of loss, and while it is currently easy for me to do this, it was easy for me to eat dinner late when I was losing and I think it would have been impossible and basically made weight loss seem hopeless if someone had been telling me the only way to lose weight right is to eat a small early dinner -- again, I normally don't get home in time for that to be possible, and skipping dinner would not have seemed reasonable or doable.
So I really do wonder what OP is driving at here that he/she thinks is of actual use (especially given individual differences between people). I guess that will remain a mystery! ;-)
I will note again that my results -- supposedly doing it the wrong way, according to OP -- were quite a bit faster than those experienced by the people in study OP thought had "massive" results, so I guess I feel like I should write a diet book and am not quite sure why I am supposed to conclude from their results that I was doing it wrong. (Kidding about the diet book, of course!) ;-)7 -
I don't know whether this applies here, but a thing I sometimes see on MFP concerning ways of eating/exercising (and in other parts of life concerning other things), is a puzzling need for some to believe that a way they prefer to behave is objectively the very best, and so should be adopted by everyone. I may be wrong, but in some cases (where I've known the person), I've perceived it as a need to be validated by "facts", as if their own preferences and opinions were not good enough by themselves, or as if them doing the thing they prefer required others to do it as an endorsement, or something.
On another thread, I posted about a pet micro-theory of mine - one I rarely mention, for reasons that may become obvious, saying "There is some very, very limited, very, very preliminary research suggesting . . . (that thing)".
If I believed in and was posting about the studies that have been linked as the thesis in this thread, I'd drop one of the second two "very"s (because some quasi-replication) - maybe even both if feeling very enthusiastic - and add something like "with some countervailing findings in some contexts" (a nod to the studies Lemurcat mentions).
Perhaps, in this case, OP firmly believes this thesis, has seen the strategy be effective in his/her personal case, and simply wants the rest of us to share in the "massive" benefits of big breakfast/small dinner.
I'm pretty sure the theoretical benefit (if any) won't override the practical implications of compliance as a major factor in success.
And if the intent is to disprove the primacy of calories as the foundation for weight loss, the studies are not on point. The controls are inadequate (free-living people, different activity levels, a puzzlingly low weight loss by all participants in at least some studies that suggests poor compliance, etc.). On the other side, there's quite strong evidence that energy balance drives bodyweight.
That is not to say that only calories are important, period, so end of important things needing to be stated.
Personally, I think reasonably balanced nutrition is more important (to long term weight management) than some other people here, and say so regularly, for example. And there are numerous threads suggesting that people struggling with calorie-goal compliance should experiment with different food choices, different timing, even different exercise strategies and weight loss rate goals, to see if that makes their compliance easier (or their energy level better). Sometimes that even extends - rationally, IMO - to suggesting that someone on very low calories should increase intake* to find a "knee in the curve" where the relationship between activity level and intake results in the best relationship between NEAT expenditures and intake (sometimes oversimplified to "eat more to weigh less"). (* Because NEAT and exercise performance can be depressed by low-calorie-driven fatigue and adaptive thermogenesis)
I'd also observe that some of the effects in the studies are perhaps more relevant for those who don't choose to count calories, and less relevant for those who do (since if there are practical problems related to the studies' findings, disciplined calorie counters will tend to understand them as problems of compliance or energy at a particular calorie level, rather than "a calorie is not a calorie"). Many of us calorie-counters have made changes in our routine (eating timing, meal composition, etc.), and found very different subjective effects at one and the same calorie level. I certainly have; but I've not seen any effect on objective weight loss rate at consistent, carefully-tracked calorie intake from different timing or composition.
Sometimes, I think the impulse to deprecate calories (or to talk about "broccoli calories" vs. "candy calories" which at best is a misunderstanding of how figures of speech work) is coming from a belief that if other things matter in a practical sense, that proves that "all calories are not the same" so they really don't matter.
To me, that's just strange reasoning, especially on a calorie-counting site. If I measure out a board for a home improvement project in inches, and I measure out a length of sewing fabric in inches, plus we all know a dress made out of boards would be silly, that doesn't make "all inches not the same" or "inches not the basic factor in measuring"**.
** With apologies and a tip of the hat to others, not living in the US, who use different - possibly more rational - length measures by convention. Same point, still, even after converting to centimeters. 14 -
Great post, Ann.
Just a couple of additions.Perhaps, in this case, OP firmly believes this thesis, has seen the strategy be effective in his/her personal case, and simply wants the rest of us to share in the "massive" benefits of big breakfast/small dinner.
Maybe (again, I think you are more willing to give the benefit of the doubt than me), but that's not the impression I got.
The impression I got was that OP had read about this as a reason that "a calorie is a calorie" is supposedly not true (based on a misunderstanding of what that even means, and a distortion of what the studies indicate so far, and was trying to set up an argument to that effect. However, when one won't even engage with or acknowledge the reasons others don't find your argument convincing, that's not a very interesting approach to discussion.
As I said before, I think there's some interesting evidence (although mixed with other studies that go the other way) about circadian rhythm and potential health benefits (although losing weight is important enough to health that I think doing what makes a calorie deficit easiest is likely most important). I also think that if one does not want to count calories and wants to try easy changes that might naturally lead to a reduction in calories, playing around with eating times and meal sizes would be one approach.
However, claiming that someone losing 8 lbs in 12 weeks is "massive" and shows one approach is the OneTrueBestWay when the deficit involved indicates the people SHOULD HAVE lost over 12 lbs and many of us here would have done so using MFP and eating whenever demonstrates placing the significance of (misunderstood) studies over reality. I also think that often when people cite studies as if one should ignore personal experience that works for the intervention recommended in the study, that tends to show that one is still stuck on finding the right diet lore (as with most times people claim that we've now proven that a calorie is not a calorie or that calories do not matter -- there's someone in another thread just now claiming that they gained eating 1800 cals less than their BMR or some such, for a similar example. I also think it's not a coincidence that these studies have been recently discussed by a diet guru (even if he would deny the title) in connection with a recent book (Dr. Greger).I'm pretty sure the theoretical benefit (if any) won't override the practical implications of compliance as a major factor in success.
Yes, and this is the important thing. My specific concern is that for someone just starting out, the huge amounts of dieting lore and rules -- don't eat this, don't eat at X time, eat this after a workout, macros must be X, Y, and Z, you must be vegan keto clean and paleo but also never eat oil avoid sat fat never never have bread and ideally be carnivore, for example -- create a feeling that you cannot succeed before you start. You feel like if you can't figure out the right way to do it you will fail so wait and wait until you can figure it out which you can't or you start and then hear advice different from what you were doing so you quit and try something else.
Ugh.
This is why I think it is so important to be very clear on how weight loss actually works -- calorie deficit, period. Now, if you think things will make that easier or they seem fun or you want to get super into nutrition nerdiness (like me), then great, but do NOT tell people (as I think OP is trying to) that you must eat a certain really specific way or it won't work or you will be missing out on some way that will be many times more effective (which is not at all evidenced when it comes to weight loss for people actually tracking cals).And if the intent is to disprove the primacy of calories as the foundation for weight loss, the studies are not on point. The controls are inadequate (free-living people, different activity levels, a puzzlingly low weight loss by all participants in at least some studies that suggests poor compliance, etc.). On the other side, there's quite strong evidence that energy balance drives bodyweight.
So much this!8 -
Great post, Ann.
Just a couple of additions.Perhaps, in this case, OP firmly believes this thesis, has seen the strategy be effective in his/her personal case, and simply wants the rest of us to share in the "massive" benefits of big breakfast/small dinner.
Maybe (again, I think you are more willing to give the benefit of the doubt than me), but that's not the impression I got.
The impression I got was that OP had read about this as a reason that "a calorie is a calorie" is supposedly not true (based on a misunderstanding of what that even means, and a distortion of what the studies indicate so far, and was trying to set up an argument to that effect. However, when one won't even engage with or acknowledge the reasons others don't find your argument convincing, that's not a very interesting approach to discussion.
As I said before, I think there's some interesting evidence (although mixed with other studies that go the other way) about circadian rhythm and potential health benefits (although losing weight is important enough to health that I think doing what makes a calorie deficit easiest is likely most important). I also think that if one does not want to count calories and wants to try easy changes that might naturally lead to a reduction in calories, playing around with eating times and meal sizes would be one approach.
However, claiming that someone losing 8 lbs in 12 weeks is "massive" and shows one approach is the OneTrueBestWay when the deficit involved indicates the people SHOULD HAVE lost over 12 lbs and many of us here would have done so using MFP and eating whenever demonstrates placing the significance of (misunderstood) studies over reality. I also think that often when people cite studies as if one should ignore personal experience that works for the intervention recommended in the study, that tends to show that one is still stuck on finding the right diet lore (as with most times people claim that we've now proven that a calorie is not a calorie or that calories do not matter -- there's someone in another thread just now claiming that they gained eating 1800 cals less than their BMR or some such, for a similar example. I also think it's not a coincidence that these studies have been recently discussed by a diet guru (even if he would deny the title) in connection with a recent book (Dr. Greger).I'm pretty sure the theoretical benefit (if any) won't override the practical implications of compliance as a major factor in success.
Yes, and this is the important thing. My specific concern is that for someone just starting out, the huge amounts of dieting lore and rules -- don't eat this, don't eat at X time, eat this after a workout, macros must be X, Y, and Z, you must be vegan keto clean and paleo but also never eat oil avoid sat fat never never have bread and ideally be carnivore, for example -- create a feeling that you cannot succeed before you start. You feel like if you can't figure out the right way to do it you will fail so wait and wait until you can figure it out which you can't or you start and then hear advice different from what you were doing so you quit and try something else.
Ugh.
This is why I think it is so important to be very clear on how weight loss actually works -- calorie deficit, period. Now, if you think things will make that easier or they seem fun or you want to get super into nutrition nerdiness (like me), then great, but do NOT tell people (as I think OP is trying to) that you must eat a certain really specific way or it won't work or you will be missing out on some way that will be many times more effective (which is not at all evidenced when it comes to weight loss for people actually tracking cals).And if the intent is to disprove the primacy of calories as the foundation for weight loss, the studies are not on point. The controls are inadequate (free-living people, different activity levels, a puzzlingly low weight loss by all participants in at least some studies that suggests poor compliance, etc.). On the other side, there's quite strong evidence that energy balance drives bodyweight.
So much this!
In addition to making you feel like you'd fail before you started, one thing all the diet "concepts" did to me (and that I've observed they do to other people) is that they make you feel like every day is pass/fail only and if you mess something up, then you should just drop the whole rest of the day because you can't make it right.
So in the terms of this debate, if I sleep through my alarm and run out the door without breakfast, then I've lost the day and nothing else I do matters. I'll have to start again tomorrow. Now multiply that times a dozen different arbitrary rules and I've a situation where it's almost impossible for me to get through a day without failing.
What calorie counting did for me was put that all in context and make me realize it was never too late to have a day be better. Even if I grab a bagel at a meeting and put myself 300 calories over goal, I can choose to stop it at 300 calories over instead of continuing because nothing really matters.
Now that I think about it, I know I've seen at least one post over the years from someone upset because they missed breakfast and they "know" they have to eat it in order to get their metabolism started and now they're worried they've ruined the whole day. And I've seen way more than one post from someone struggling to make themselves choke down breakfast, a meal they've never wanted, because they think it's required for weight loss.
It's to the point where I'd be happy never to hear about breakfast in a weight loss context again because
1) it's the beginning of the day and nobody deserves to feel like they've failed and lost all hope first thing in the morning!
2) it makes too many people feel like they're broken because they don't want the meal that we're constantly told is the key meal for weight loss
3) arguments for the primacy of breakfast too often make a pathology of something that is perfectly okay and natural behavior for many people, a hearty dinner.12 -
I don't know whether this applies here, but a thing I sometimes see on MFP concerning ways of eating/exercising (and in other parts of life concerning other things), is a puzzling need for some to believe that a way they prefer to behave is objectively the very best, and so should be adopted by everyone. I may be wrong, but in some cases (where I've known the person), I've perceived it as a need to be validated by "facts", as if their own preferences and opinions were not good enough by themselves, or as if them doing the thing they prefer required others to do it as an endorsement, or something.
I think what is interesting is that the more of things done right, the more things that seem to be optimal (objectively the very best). Several people who are at a good body composition, eating around maintenance, and doing both some resistance and aerobic activities could both report different recommendations for the best and actually both be right. Some could report their experience is eating 50% carbohydrate, or 50% fat, all show similar health markers, or the could say they need 5 hours of exercise or 10, and both show similar markers.
I don't think that's the case here though.
Well in the most long term, everyone acquires adaptive thermogenesis that brings BMR to 0, because in the long run, we're all dead.Personally, I think reasonably balanced nutrition is more important (to long term weight management) than some other people here, and say so regularly, for example. And there are numerous threads suggesting that people struggling with calorie-goal compliance should experiment with different food choices, different timing, even different exercise strategies and weight loss rate goals, to see if that makes their compliance easier (or their energy level better). Sometimes that even extends - rationally, IMO - to suggesting that someone on very low calories should increase intake* to find a "knee in the curve" where the relationship between activity level and intake results in the best relationship between NEAT expenditures and intake (sometimes oversimplified to "eat more to weigh less"). (* Because NEAT and exercise performance can be depressed by low-calorie-driven fatigue and adaptive thermogenesis)
This does remind me though that this morning I saw Menno showing a study that showed on long term predictions of weight maintenance seems to do with variability in weight.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31949298
Menno felt with his clients the less variability in weight, the more the life style they're doing is a maintainable one instead of reactionary.2 -
(snip for reply length)Perhaps, in this case, OP firmly believes this thesis, has seen the strategy be effective in his/her personal case, and simply wants the rest of us to share in the "massive" benefits of big breakfast/small dinner.
Maybe (again, I think you are more willing to give the benefit of the doubt than me), but that's not the impression I got.
I appreciate the supportive comments, Lemurcat2, and (unsurprisingly) agree with your additions (which I didn't quote): The plethora of "research proven" (heh) "rules" (heh) obscures the basics, makes the process seem unachievable, and adds counter-productive tonnage to the psychological baggage many of us are already carrying, when it comes to food, weight, exercise, nutrition, and health.
To the bolded: You've said something similar before, I think. You could think of the passage of mine you quoted as being generous, as you say; or as rhetorically offering a friendly off-ramp to some disagreeing readers. I'd point out that it's phrased as speculation, not conclusion. 3 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »(snip for reply length)
This does remind me though that this morning I saw Menno showing a study that showed on long term predictions of weight maintenance seems to do with variability in weight.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31949298
Menno felt with his clients the less variability in weight, the more the life style they're doing is a maintainable one instead of reactionary.
Reading only the abstract (since the article appears to be behind a paywall): Maintainability, perhaps (which I assume is equivalent to sustainability, in this context?); or perhaps just extent of personal commitment to change at that point. I support the idea of research to substantiate common sense, and this seems like it might be that sort of thing. To put it in MFP-common lingo I don't really believe in, are we saying that people who fall off the wagon more often along the way are less successful in the long run?
This is not a diss of anyone for "lack of commitment", BTW: I've tried to change many times, in many ways. When I decide to change, I change, as long as the relevant factors are under my control. I've often mused about what it is that makes that switch flip: If I could consciously control it completely in all cases, that would be useful. People say all kinds of things about discipline and determination and motivation, but those are somewhat-circular abstractions, IMO, so not very satisfying as explanations.4 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »(snip for reply length)
This does remind me though that this morning I saw Menno showing a study that showed on long term predictions of weight maintenance seems to do with variability in weight.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31949298
Menno felt with his clients the less variability in weight, the more the life style they're doing is a maintainable one instead of reactionary.
Reading only the abstract (since the article appears to be behind a paywall): Maintainability, perhaps (which I assume is equivalent to sustainability, in this context?); or perhaps just extent of personal commitment to change at that point. I support the idea of research to substantiate common sense, and this seems like it might be that sort of thing. To put it in MFP-common lingo I don't really believe in, are we saying that people who fall off the wagon more often along the way are less successful in the long run?
This is not a diss of anyone for "lack of commitment", BTW: I've tried to change many times, in many ways. When I decide to change, I change, as long as the relevant factors are under my control. I've often mused about what it is that makes that switch flip: If I could consciously control it completely in all cases, that would be useful. People say all kinds of things about discipline and determination and motivation, but those are somewhat-circular abstractions, IMO, so not very satisfying as explanations.
This is exactly my problem! I know I need to lose weight, get healthier, etc, but I will try and fail time and time again, until suddenly, I'm successful doing the exact same thing I had tried and failed at before. And it works for a few months until suddenly it isn't working anymore, even though I keep trying to do what I had done before. I plateaued for 18 months and kept trying to get back into what had worked before with no success until suddenly, the switch slid back to the on position, and its working again. I'd love to know what is flipping that switch on and off in my brain and learn to control the darn thing myself!
Perhaps my problem is that it's not so much a switch as it is a wind up key to a music box? You know when they get to winding down, they'll grind to a stop, and then if you tap them, they start up again for a little while?
5 -
I was always told to eat more food early in the day and less at dinner so you're not overlapping sleep with digestion.1
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