Stop eating after 5:00 p.m.?
Options
Replies
-
So is this simply about hunger? Leading to excess eating?
Cause if you eat 2000 calories in one meal for breakfast or eat 2000 for dinner, you have still eaten 2000 calories, and if you are burning 2500 a day then you have created a deficit right?2 -
So is this simply about hunger? Leading to excess eating?
Cause if you eat 2000 calories in one meal for breakfast or eat 2000 for dinner, you have still eaten 2000 calories, and if you are burning 2500 a day then you have created a deficit right?
No. Time restricted eating is about giving your body enough time to rejuvenate and repair and if we're eating over a lot of hours say from 8 in the morning and still snacking late in the evening, then that repair time is reduced because we need to realize digestion is very taxing on the body and also lasts for a good 4 to 6 hours that creeps into that repair time. All this study proves is if someone shortens the time they eat that health markers improve. Actually, in the science of time restricted eating it's not adviseable to eat in a deficit because that will have an effect on lean mass and other factors. In the world of dieting this of course was never understood properly, and people believe it's a way to lose weight which was never, ever the purpose.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »So is this simply about hunger? Leading to excess eating?
Cause if you eat 2000 calories in one meal for breakfast or eat 2000 for dinner, you have still eaten 2000 calories, and if you are burning 2500 a day then you have created a deficit right?
No. Time restricted eating is about giving your body enough time to rejuvenate and repair and if we're eating over a lot of hours say from 8 in the morning and still snacking late in the evening, then that repair time is reduced because we need to realize digestion is very taxing on the body and also lasts for a good 4 to 6 hours that creeps into that repair time. All this study proves is if someone shortens the time they eat that health markers improve. Actually, in the science of time restricted eating it's not adviseable to eat in a deficit because that will have an effect on lean mass and other factors. In the world of dieting this of course was never understood properly, and people believe it's a way to lose weight which was never, ever the purpose.
Is your definition of digestion very narrow (not concerning digestion from start to finish, but only part/the start of it?
According to the Mayo clinic:
"After you eat, it takes about six to eight hours for food to pass through your stomach and small intestine. Food then enters your large intestine (colon) for further digestion, absorption of water and, finally, elimination of undigested food. It takes about 36 hours for food to move through the entire colon. All in all, the whole process — from the time you swallow food to the time it leaves your body as feces — takes about two to five days, depending on the individual."
Considering the total duration of digestion, even while doing TRE we're always in the process of digesting food somewhere?6 -
neanderthin wrote: »So is this simply about hunger? Leading to excess eating?
Cause if you eat 2000 calories in one meal for breakfast or eat 2000 for dinner, you have still eaten 2000 calories, and if you are burning 2500 a day then you have created a deficit right?
No. Time restricted eating is about giving your body enough time to rejuvenate and repair and if we're eating over a lot of hours say from 8 in the morning and still snacking late in the evening, then that repair time is reduced because we need to realize digestion is very taxing on the body and also lasts for a good 4 to 6 hours that creeps into that repair time. All this study proves is if someone shortens the time they eat that health markers improve. Actually, in the science of time restricted eating it's not adviseable to eat in a deficit because that will have an effect on lean mass and other factors. In the world of dieting this of course was never understood properly, and people believe it's a way to lose weight which was never, ever the purpose.
IS your definition of digestion very narrow (not concerning digestion from start to finish, but only part/the start of it)?
According to the Mayo clinic:
"After you eat, it takes about six to eight hours for food to pass through your stomach and small intestine. Food then enters your large intestine (colon) for further digestion, absorption of water and, finally, elimination of undigested food. It takes about 36 hours for food to move through the entire colon. All in all, the whole process — from the time you swallow food to the time it leaves your body as feces — takes about two to five days, depending on the individual."
Considering the total duration of digestion, even while doing TRE we're always in the process of digesting food somewhere?
Thank you!
We might not be considering that it's very taxing on the body to create stomach acid and pushing food out of the stomach though. Much more than the whole passage through the intestines.
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »So is this simply about hunger? Leading to excess eating?
Cause if you eat 2000 calories in one meal for breakfast or eat 2000 for dinner, you have still eaten 2000 calories, and if you are burning 2500 a day then you have created a deficit right?
No. Time restricted eating is about giving your body enough time to rejuvenate and repair and if we're eating over a lot of hours say from 8 in the morning and still snacking late in the evening, then that repair time is reduced because we need to realize digestion is very taxing on the body and also lasts for a good 4 to 6 hours that creeps into that repair time. All this study proves is if someone shortens the time they eat that health markers improve. Actually, in the science of time restricted eating it's not adviseable to eat in a deficit because that will have an effect on lean mass and other factors. In the world of dieting this of course was never understood properly, and people believe it's a way to lose weight which was never, ever the purpose.
Is your definition of digestion very narrow (not concerning digestion from start to finish, but only part/the start of it?
According to the Mayo clinic:
"After you eat, it takes about six to eight hours for food to pass through your stomach and small intestine. Food then enters your large intestine (colon) for further digestion, absorption of water and, finally, elimination of undigested food. It takes about 36 hours for food to move through the entire colon. All in all, the whole process — from the time you swallow food to the time it leaves your body as feces — takes about two to five days, depending on the individual."
Considering the total duration of digestion, even while doing TRE we're always in the process of digesting food somewhere?
Yeah, and as it pertains to repair, recovery and reset for the following day for our circadian internal clocks which the stomach has it's own as do all other organs. Apparently right after digestion in the stomach about 10 % of the lining is damaged somewhat and is considered normal and it's the repair during the stomachs down time that recovery begins. The lions share or the majority of work is the initial energy for that immediate digestion which is normally the first 4 to 6 hours but of course the types of food we're eating will affect digestion time. Digestion increases our core temperature as well, it really is a very violent and disruptive environment so to speak breaking down foods that normally would take months to decompose if just left to their own devices in nature. Cheers
Just to add: We're either in the fed state or fasted state which is mostly dictated by our hormones and when Insulin comes back down to base line that's considered the beginning of the fasted state and that repair process begins and we can still have other metabolic processes occurring simultaneously and the later digestion process is one of them.....we can't be in a fed state, meaning anabolic for 3 or 4 days just for the completion of digestion process.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »This study has nothing to do with weight loss or if eating past 5 puts on weight or how someone might find it inconvenient for whatever reason. Whether someone's schedule finds them eating late or they do shift work also has nothing to do with this study, it's just showing that certain factors (hormones) can elicit a possible negative outcome that over time if someone is obese could find their condition not improving or getting worse even though they're controlling their calorie intake. The two groups ate the same number of calories, which were not designed to put participants in a deficit, basically isocaloric conditions
This study looks at the differences in hormonal regulation and found that the group that ate later (8:00) saw certain hormones affected deleteriously which over time could find that group in a positive energy balance increasing obesity risk. No more, no less. Not eating after 5 somehow became the focus. Cheers.
Well, it is the title of this thread 😆
And the first word of the first sentence from the study is "Obesity."1 -
neanderthin wrote: »This study looks at the differences in hormonal regulation and found that the group that ate later (8:00) saw certain hormones affected deleteriously which over time could find that group in a positive energy balance increasing obesity risk. No more, no less. Not eating after 5 somehow became the focus. Cheers.
The lab's focus is understanding timing as it relates to food intake. Not exclusively obesity or weight loss.
I'm thinking at the highest level some people believe the time of the day which people eat has an effect. Others believe the time of day has no impact. This lab is trying to understand this.0 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »This study looks at the differences in hormonal regulation and found that the group that ate later (8:00) saw certain hormones affected deleteriously which over time could find that group in a positive energy balance increasing obesity risk. No more, no less. Not eating after 5 somehow became the focus. Cheers.
The lab's focus is understanding timing as it relates to food intake. Not exclusively obesity or weight loss.
I'm thinking at the highest level some people believe the time of the day which people eat has an effect. Others believe the time of day has no impact. This lab is trying to understand this.
I think you might be referring to meal frequency where some will argue it makes a difference and others say it doesn't, which time restricted eating is not that.
The science of Time Restricted Eating (TRE) is about an alternative to getting healthy or healthier that has nothing to do with what you eat, so the focus has nothing to do with the actual food, or, worrying about creating a caloric deficit by finding some kind of diet or strategy. The basic premise around TRE is allowing a minimum of 12 consecutive hours of not eating for the repair and rebuild process to work properly.
Creating a diet strategy for a caloric deficit is an altogether different strategy from TRE and where IF or intermittent fasting may be beneficial if again you don't want a diet that restricts food groups or other compliances that can be hard to adhere to.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »chris_in_cal wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »This study looks at the differences in hormonal regulation and found that the group that ate later (8:00) saw certain hormones affected deleteriously which over time could find that group in a positive energy balance increasing obesity risk. No more, no less. Not eating after 5 somehow became the focus. Cheers.
The lab's focus is understanding timing as it relates to food intake. Not exclusively obesity or weight loss.
I'm thinking at the highest level some people believe the time of the day which people eat has an effect. Others believe the time of day has no impact. This lab is trying to understand this.
I think you might be referring to meal frequency where some will argue it makes a difference and others say it doesn't, which time restricted eating is not that.
The science of Time Restricted Eating (TRE) is about an alternative to getting healthy or healthier that has nothing to do with what you eat, so the focus has nothing to do with the actual food, or, worrying about creating a caloric deficit by finding some kind of diet or strategy. The basic premise around TRE is allowing a minimum of 12 consecutive hours of not eating for the repair and rebuild process to work properly.
Creating a diet strategy for a caloric deficit is an altogether different strategy from TRE and where IF or intermittent fasting may be beneficial if again you don't want a diet that restricts food groups or other compliances that can be hard to adhere to.
This is not a disagreement with your interesting post, just a quote of it to continue the general line of conversation.
Around here, I think lots of us are implicitly looking for those maybe-mythical, much-marketed "weight loss hacks" that will make the process easy, or at least easier. Studies like the one cited are inevitably fodder for that impulse, even to the point of interpreting the studies out of their scientific context.
In most cases, in a practical sense, what's the harm (as long as risky behavior isn't induced)? The placebo effect is strong, and there's some evidence that it's strong enough to trigger physiological changes in things like satiation and appetite hormone levels.
Sure, more nuanced contextual understanding is better from an intellectual benefits perspective, but this isn't MyIntellectPal, so that's not going to be most threads' take on things, probably. Keep posting, though - it's a good thing.2 -
neanderthin wrote: »chris_in_cal wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »This study looks at the differences in hormonal regulation and found that the group that ate later (8:00) saw certain hormones affected deleteriously which over time could find that group in a positive energy balance increasing obesity risk. No more, no less. Not eating after 5 somehow became the focus. Cheers.
The lab's focus is understanding timing as it relates to food intake. Not exclusively obesity or weight loss.
I'm thinking at the highest level some people believe the time of the day which people eat has an effect. Others believe the time of day has no impact. This lab is trying to understand this.
I think you might be referring to meal frequency where some will argue it makes a difference and others say it doesn't, which time restricted eating is not that.
The science of Time Restricted Eating (TRE) is about an alternative to getting healthy or healthier that has nothing to do with what you eat, so the focus has nothing to do with the actual food, or, worrying about creating a caloric deficit by finding some kind of diet or strategy. The basic premise around TRE is allowing a minimum of 12 consecutive hours of not eating for the repair and rebuild process to work properly.
Creating a diet strategy for a caloric deficit is an altogether different strategy from TRE and where IF or intermittent fasting may be beneficial if again you don't want a diet that restricts food groups or other compliances that can be hard to adhere to.
This is not a disagreement with your interesting post, just a quote of it to continue the general line of conversation.
Around here, I think lots of us are implicitly looking for those maybe-mythical, much-marketed "weight loss hacks" that will make the process easy, or at least easier. Studies like the one cited are inevitably fodder for that impulse, even to the point of interpreting the studies out of their scientific context.
In most cases, in a practical sense, what's the harm (as long as risky behavior isn't induced)? The placebo effect is strong, and there's some evidence that it's strong enough to trigger physiological changes in things like satiation and appetite hormone levels.
Sure, more nuanced contextual understanding is better from an intellectual benefits perspective, but this isn't MyIntellectPal, so that's not going to be most threads' take on things, probably. Keep posting, though - it's a good thing.
Thanks Ann.
I believe when a person has more knowledge of a particular subject the more informed they are to make decisions to facilitate better outcomes or when outcomes or strategies don't work, they're better equipped to understand why. I believe myfitnesspal includes nutrition and health as topics for discussion although I know that most people have a limited knowledge and I do understand people may feel like they don't want to get involved or comment, it doesn't mean that they aren't interested or don't get anything out of it, well hopefully anyway. I think mostly people don't want to look uninformed, which is a shame because getting involved with the nuance is how we learn or correct misinformation or long held beliefs, confirmation biases, etc. I know I've learned alot from this site from people like yourself and many others. Basically, this effects our body more than simply our intellect, well hopefully anyway.
The problem I see are two-fold. First is the reductive approach to health and health care in as much as we have completely different disciplines regarding health of the body and mind. That will never work. Secondly nutrition, up until recently was a second-class discipline that never received any attention to speak of and when these two factors come together, we have what we see now with 75% of the population overweight, obese and sick with only about 6% of the population in the US with what would be considered a totally healthy metabolism. In simple terms the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.
TRE is a strategy with an outcome that would benefit every single person's overall health and wellbeing with the complication of reducing the amount of hours a person consumes food during a 24 hour period to a minimum of 12 hours, basically a few hrs for most people and the person doesn't have to worry about a deficit or worry whether they ate too many carbs. The risk/benefit is stacked in favor of benefit. So when we don't eat after 5 becomes the talking point the overall message gets overlooked. Plus it's an easy strategy that a person can adhere to relatively easy for the rest of their lives.
Cheers.
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »chris_in_cal wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »This study looks at the differences in hormonal regulation and found that the group that ate later (8:00) saw certain hormones affected deleteriously which over time could find that group in a positive energy balance increasing obesity risk. No more, no less. Not eating after 5 somehow became the focus. Cheers.
The lab's focus is understanding timing as it relates to food intake. Not exclusively obesity or weight loss.
I'm thinking at the highest level some people believe the time of the day which people eat has an effect. Others believe the time of day has no impact. This lab is trying to understand this.
I think you might be referring to meal frequency where some will argue it makes a difference and others say it doesn't, which time restricted eating is not that.
The science of Time Restricted Eating (TRE) is about an alternative to getting healthy or healthier that has nothing to do with what you eat, so the focus has nothing to do with the actual food, or, worrying about creating a caloric deficit by finding some kind of diet or strategy. The basic premise around TRE is allowing a minimum of 12 consecutive hours of not eating for the repair and rebuild process to work properly.
Creating a diet strategy for a caloric deficit is an altogether different strategy from TRE and where IF or intermittent fasting may be beneficial if again you don't want a diet that restricts food groups or other compliances that can be hard to adhere to.
This is not a disagreement with your interesting post, just a quote of it to continue the general line of conversation.
Around here, I think lots of us are implicitly looking for those maybe-mythical, much-marketed "weight loss hacks" that will make the process easy, or at least easier. Studies like the one cited are inevitably fodder for that impulse, even to the point of interpreting the studies out of their scientific context.
In most cases, in a practical sense, what's the harm (as long as risky behavior isn't induced)? The placebo effect is strong, and there's some evidence that it's strong enough to trigger physiological changes in things like satiation and appetite hormone levels.
Sure, more nuanced contextual understanding is better from an intellectual benefits perspective, but this isn't MyIntellectPal, so that's not going to be most threads' take on things, probably. Keep posting, though - it's a good thing.
Thanks Ann.
I believe when a person has more knowledge of a particular subject the more informed they are to make decisions to facilitate better outcomes or when outcomes or strategies don't work, they're better equipped to understand why. I believe myfitnesspal includes nutrition and health as topics for discussion although I know that most people have a limited knowledge and I do understand people may feel like they don't want to get involved or comment, it doesn't mean that they aren't interested or don't get anything out of it, well hopefully anyway. I think mostly people don't want to look uninformed, which is a shame because getting involved with the nuance is how we learn or correct misinformation or long held beliefs, confirmation biases, etc. I know I've learned alot from this site from people like yourself and many others. Basically, this effects our body more than simply our intellect, well hopefully anyway.
The problem I see are two-fold. First is the reductive approach to health and health care in as much as we have completely different disciplines regarding health of the body and mind. That will never work. Secondly nutrition, up until recently was a second-class discipline that never received any attention to speak of and when these two factors come together, we have what we see now with 75% of the population overweight, obese and sick with only about 6% of the population in the US with what would be considered a totally healthy metabolism. In simple terms the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.
TRE is a strategy with an outcome that would benefit every single person's overall health and wellbeing with the complication of reducing the amount of hours a person consumes food during a 24 hour period to a minimum of 12 hours, basically a few hrs for most people and the person doesn't have to worry about a deficit or worry whether they ate too many carbs. The risk/benefit is stacked in favor of benefit. So when we don't eat after 5 becomes the talking point the overall message gets overlooked. Plus it's an easy strategy that a person can adhere to relatively easy for the rest of their lives.
Cheers.
I understand and agree with what I think is your general perspective on the usefulness of pursuing (and the potential benefits of achieving) a fuller and more contextualized understanding of the science. I also agree that it's worth adding more of that kind of depth to threads if one is capable, and agree that even non-posting readers may get something out of it.
I've learned a lot here from people who put their time in, to provide depth and context.
What I'm saying is that as a practical thing, a lot of folks in the MFP subculture will apply a "how does this help me lose weight fast" filter to almost anything of the nature of the initially cited study, whether that's on point or not. We should expect that.
On top of that, we're in an overall popular culture context where it's common for people think it's a critique of science itself to say "one study says one thing, another says the opposite" or "you can find a study to support any and every opinion". That culture lowers the probability of folks understanding how any particular study fits into the big picture.
Further, even if I accept the premise that TRE could revolutionarily improve public health, I still think people at large won't adopt things they know in their hearts are good for them, unless those things are easy, fun, convenient, pleasurable, etc. The populace has proven that pretty clearly over and over. Heck, I've proven that pretty clearly over and over myself!
I'm not saying I'm a paragon of intellectual insight here - far from it. I'm saying I'm cynical about the impact of intellectual understanding on humans' practical behavior. There are a lot of overweight and unfit health professionals, y'know?
The cultural and psychological dimensions of obesity and metabolic ill-health are tougher problems IMO than the nutritional and medical science . . . not that that latter part's easy.
1 -
I think studies may show a slight increase in weight loss or something if people dont eat in the evening.
However in real life for many people, this increase is never more than very minimal - and the inconvenience or difficulty of doing something to supposedly get a minimal advantage outweighs the benifits
Hence real life application is generally limited and outweighed by other factors - such as work schedules, family life, personal preference etc.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »Hence real life application is generally limited and outweighed by other factors - such as work schedules, family life, personal preference etc.
I mostly agree with you on this. One thing, can't I read your last part you wrote and conclude "Yes, American's are living their actual real lives right now, and making actual choices based on schedule, family, preference, etc. and here we are with the status of Americans and our weight."
With those factors (schedule, preference, family) what if personally taking on a hard project is necessary? Either a continuation of the path we seem to be on, or taking on something challenging?
1 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Hence real life application is generally limited and outweighed by other factors - such as work schedules, family life, personal preference etc.
I mostly agree with you on this. One thing, can't I read your last part you wrote and conclude "Yes, American's are living their actual real lives right now, and making actual choices based on schedule, family, preference, etc. and here we are with the status of Americans and our weight."
With those factors (schedule, preference, family) what if personally taking on a hard project is necessary? Either a continuation of the path we seem to be on, or taking on something challenging?
If some individual wants to take on a hard project, that's great, their choice. I hope they succeed, sincerely.
But it's not a solution to the obesity/metabolic health problem at the population level. How would we convince them to do it?
All of that said, and with recognition that individual people truly face real practical obstacles . . . I'm not convinced that weight management universally has to be a hard project.
Sometimes, I almost think we go out of our way to make it harder, with tricksy, trendy, restrictive named diets, and impractical schedules of punitively intense exercise.
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »chris_in_cal wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »This study looks at the differences in hormonal regulation and found that the group that ate later (8:00) saw certain hormones affected deleteriously which over time could find that group in a positive energy balance increasing obesity risk. No more, no less. Not eating after 5 somehow became the focus. Cheers.
The lab's focus is understanding timing as it relates to food intake. Not exclusively obesity or weight loss.
I'm thinking at the highest level some people believe the time of the day which people eat has an effect. Others believe the time of day has no impact. This lab is trying to understand this.
I think you might be referring to meal frequency where some will argue it makes a difference and others say it doesn't, which time restricted eating is not that.
The science of Time Restricted Eating (TRE) is about an alternative to getting healthy or healthier that has nothing to do with what you eat, so the focus has nothing to do with the actual food, or, worrying about creating a caloric deficit by finding some kind of diet or strategy. The basic premise around TRE is allowing a minimum of 12 consecutive hours of not eating for the repair and rebuild process to work properly.
Creating a diet strategy for a caloric deficit is an altogether different strategy from TRE and where IF or intermittent fasting may be beneficial if again you don't want a diet that restricts food groups or other compliances that can be hard to adhere to.
This is not a disagreement with your interesting post, just a quote of it to continue the general line of conversation.
Around here, I think lots of us are implicitly looking for those maybe-mythical, much-marketed "weight loss hacks" that will make the process easy, or at least easier. Studies like the one cited are inevitably fodder for that impulse, even to the point of interpreting the studies out of their scientific context.
In most cases, in a practical sense, what's the harm (as long as risky behavior isn't induced)? The placebo effect is strong, and there's some evidence that it's strong enough to trigger physiological changes in things like satiation and appetite hormone levels.
Sure, more nuanced contextual understanding is better from an intellectual benefits perspective, but this isn't MyIntellectPal, so that's not going to be most threads' take on things, probably. Keep posting, though - it's a good thing.
Thanks Ann.
I believe when a person has more knowledge of a particular subject the more informed they are to make decisions to facilitate better outcomes or when outcomes or strategies don't work, they're better equipped to understand why. I believe myfitnesspal includes nutrition and health as topics for discussion although I know that most people have a limited knowledge and I do understand people may feel like they don't want to get involved or comment, it doesn't mean that they aren't interested or don't get anything out of it, well hopefully anyway. I think mostly people don't want to look uninformed, which is a shame because getting involved with the nuance is how we learn or correct misinformation or long held beliefs, confirmation biases, etc. I know I've learned alot from this site from people like yourself and many others. Basically, this effects our body more than simply our intellect, well hopefully anyway.
The problem I see are two-fold. First is the reductive approach to health and health care in as much as we have completely different disciplines regarding health of the body and mind. That will never work. Secondly nutrition, up until recently was a second-class discipline that never received any attention to speak of and when these two factors come together, we have what we see now with 75% of the population overweight, obese and sick with only about 6% of the population in the US with what would be considered a totally healthy metabolism. In simple terms the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.
TRE is a strategy with an outcome that would benefit every single person's overall health and wellbeing with the complication of reducing the amount of hours a person consumes food during a 24 hour period to a minimum of 12 hours, basically a few hrs for most people and the person doesn't have to worry about a deficit or worry whether they ate too many carbs. The risk/benefit is stacked in favor of benefit. So when we don't eat after 5 becomes the talking point the overall message gets overlooked. Plus it's an easy strategy that a person can adhere to relatively easy for the rest of their lives.
Cheers.
I understand and agree with what I think is your general perspective on the usefulness of pursuing (and the potential benefits of achieving) a fuller and more contextualized understanding of the science. I also agree that it's worth adding more of that kind of depth to threads if one is capable, and agree that even non-posting readers may get something out of it.
I've learned a lot here from people who put their time in, to provide depth and context.
What I'm saying is that as a practical thing, a lot of folks in the MFP subculture will apply a "how does this help me lose weight fast" filter to almost anything of the nature of the initially cited study, whether that's on point or not. We should expect that.
On top of that, we're in an overall popular culture context where it's common for people think it's a critique of science itself to say "one study says one thing, another says the opposite" or "you can find a study to support any and every opinion". That culture lowers the probability of folks understanding how any particular study fits into the big picture.
Further, even if I accept the premise that TRE could revolutionarily improve public health, I still think people at large won't adopt things they know in their hearts are good for them, unless those things are easy, fun, convenient, pleasurable, etc. The populace has proven that pretty clearly over and over. Heck, I've proven that pretty clearly over and over myself!
I'm not saying I'm a paragon of intellectual insight here - far from it. I'm saying I'm cynical about the impact of intellectual understanding on humans' practical behavior. There are a lot of overweight and unfit health professionals, y'know?
The cultural and psychological dimensions of obesity and metabolic ill-health are tougher problems IMO than the nutritional and medical science . . . not that that latter part's easy.
Well, I may be giving people more credit than they deserve, I don't know really, I can only try and convey information that might be valuable.
I also understand perfectly the conundrum as it relates to science voiced by media, interest groups and charlatans that makes it very difficult to impossible to sus out quality data. All I'll say about that for now is that 90% is based on epidemiology which cannot draw any medical conclusions but unfortunately that's what's used more often than not to prove the assertion they believe is in their best interest and not actually in science because that type of data can be manipulated on demand and why we see headlines like eggs are good, eggs are bad that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease and the other hundreds of conflicting headlines. It's not easy but understanding the differences can help alleviate the stress or confusion of not quite knowing for sure.
I also agree the general medical community would be the last place I personally would look for accurate information and that's a good reason why people should take their own health into their own hand because trust me, you'll be more focused than the Dr. that gives you 10 minutes a session every x months just to hear whether your medication staying the same, if your lucky, or going up. Lifes a journey and eyes wide open and prepared isn't such a bad thing. who knows maybe I'm too optimistic.
1 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Hence real life application is generally limited and outweighed by other factors - such as work schedules, family life, personal preference etc.
I mostly agree with you on this. One thing, can't I read your last part you wrote and conclude "Yes, American's are living their actual real lives right now, and making actual choices based on schedule, family, preference, etc. and here we are with the status of Americans and our weight."
With those factors (schedule, preference, family) what if personally taking on a hard project is necessary? Either a continuation of the path we seem to be on, or taking on something challenging?
that doesnt seem a logical conclusion to me.
Your post, paraphrased: "People's actual diet/excercise choices now on a population level are resulting in obese people - therefore it would be good if they all gain very minimal advantage by not eating after x evening time"
If they change nothing else the gains would be very minimal - inconvenient, difficult, unpleasant - for very minimal gain.
No point taking on a hard project that doesnt gain much.
Far better to focus on things that will be of worthwhile gain whilst not making the project harder than it has to be by doing things of very minimal gain.
ie Dont change the wrong path. Don't change when you eat - just change how many calories you are eating by something simple like Eat less, (doesnt matter when) Move more.
1 -
paperpudding wrote: »
ie Dont change the wrong path. Don't change when you eat - just change how many calories you are eating by something simple like Eat less, (doesnt matter when) Move more.
Eat less and move more has been the standard advice since the 80's. Either that's too much to ask, because people have only gotten fatter and sicker, or it doesn't work. The only conclusion is people don't care about their health at all and apparently that would include their children and that disease and medication must also be the acceptable result of that decision.
Eating less requires the knowledge to be able to count the calories your consuming, understand labels and portion. Whole foods need to be weighed and portioned and research the calories of those whole foods, writing down in some kind of journal to keep track and if you're a responsible parent you would also do this for your children as well. Moving more, specifically directly focused on cardio and weight training would be more difficult for most people.
I wouldn't call this simple or easy, I would call this a battle cry of determination to improve one's health with a 95% failure rate. Like I said, the only conclusion would be that people really don't care or it doesn't work.0 -
Just to add. I'm not just referring to calorie counting, I'm referring to all dietary strategies designed to put people in a deficit. All these dietary strategies work for a time but doing it for the rest of a persons life is the reason for the failure rate and for a number of logical reasons, so it's not really a surprise.0
-
neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
ie Dont change the wrong path. Don't change when you eat - just change how many calories you are eating by something simple like Eat less, (doesnt matter when) Move more.
Eat less and move more has been the standard advice since the 80's. Either that's too much to ask, because people have only gotten fatter and sicker, or it doesn't work. The only conclusion is people don't care about their health at all and apparently that would include their children and that disease and medication must also be the acceptable result of that decision.
Eating less requires the knowledge to be able to count the calories your consuming, understand labels and portion. Whole foods need to be weighed and portioned and research the calories of those whole foods, writing down in some kind of journal to keep track and if you're a responsible parent you would also do this for your children as well. Moving more, specifically directly focused on cardio and weight training would be more difficult for most people.
I wouldn't call this simple or easy, I would call this a battle cry of determination to improve one's health with a 95% failure rate. Like I said, the only conclusion would be that people really don't care or it doesn't work.
I didnt say it is simple or easy
it often is difficult to do in practice - nevertheless the only way to lose weight is to eat less and/or move more
Or eat less than you burn
or CICO
all paraphrases of same principle.
the best advice remains for people to find on a way to do that rather than focussing on things like not eating after x time, which make the weight loss goal more difficult and , with nothing else changing, has very minimal impact.
Focus on the main thing not very tangential minimal things.
2 -
Why do people overeat?1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions