Dr. Oz’s Best Time of Day to Lose Weight Timetable
Replies
-
Another thought for everyone - regardless of opinions on Dr. Oz (I think he's neither quack nor genius, and see him give some helpful information to people, but whatever) - there are definitely ideas that working out FIRST THING (...check out BODY FOR LIFE If you didn't already do that plan back in the 90s, for instance...) is a major metabolic booster - and the rare time's I've managed it, I have found that it's about as good as coffee for upping my energy early on. AND I have read some reports of new studies (just in fitness mags and stuff, but credible) that show that exercising at YOUR most alert and energetic time of day (for me, either late morning or late afternoon) is best with regard to coordination and calorie burn. This, however, is a different benefit, than the "stoke the fires" one of doing it first thing. I am categorically weaker in my earlier morning workouts than in later in the day ones, I know that much (I never workout immediately upon rising, but often 9:30ish after getting some work done, since I work from home).
The Oz plan does leave gaps of more than 4 hours for food and one assumes there would be snacks implied, but whatever.
So, very plainly, you could consider, say, steppign up and down on a step or getting on an exercise cycle for like 15 or 20 minutes immediately upon waking, zombie through as best you could, and almost definitely recognize a benefit all day, but you would probably NOT want to replace your full workout with this, and yeah, you might want to be doing that workout at a "stronger" time, when you'll be able to work your hardest.0 -
Does reality actually exist before 8:00am? I've never tested this out, but it seems scary
LMAO0 -
It seems to me that the early schedule would be for those that work the day shift, and just adjust it to your schedule. If you work nights, then weigh at the beginning of your work day, and so forth.
This schedule is doable for me, except for exercising 1st thing in the morning. I already get up early just to eat breakfast, can't get motivated to get up even earlier just to exercise. Oh well. I do what I can.0 -
I love me some Dr. Oz!!! 0 -
The best time of day to lose weight is toilet time.
hahahaha!0 -
6:30 AM is not the best time for me...I don't work so I am usually asleep, but if I get up to do something (like a potty break) and get on the scale, it will be up at least 1 lb from my usual weigh in time of around 9:30. And no I do not sleep until 9:30, I am usually out of bed by 8.0
-
Grocery Shop on Saturday or your day off at 10 AM. I think the point was that if you have to grocery shop or weigh in or exercise that those times of the day are more benefical to you....0
-
I couldn't find the video of the episode. But the reasoning behind his assertions seem scientifically valid. Here is the timeline for a given day.
6:30 AM: Weigh Yourself (this means you have to get up! Ughh!)
6:35 AM: Exercise
7:30 AM: Eat Breakfast
8:00 AM: Metabolism Boost (occurs because of previous)
10:00 AM: Grocery Shop (a safe time to shop so you don't buy crap)
12:00 PM: Lunch
6:15 PM: Fiber Supplement
6:30 PM: Dinner
He doesn't mention snacks in there but obviously we need them for the in between times.
I wish there was a clip out there on some of this... it really seemed to make sense.
You need to educate yourself if this seems scientifically valid. There is no metabolic advantage to increased meal frequency, so no need to eat breakast or snack in between meals
and who cares when you weigh yourself as scale weight is basically meaningless and tells little of overall body composition0 -
There was another thread, which I didn't bookmark, about a study which suggested benefits to exercising before breakfast. The time frame was a bit short, but its still interesting.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/phys-ed-the-benefits-of-exercising-before-breakfast/0 -
the schedule that work is the one you can fit in your life....period. Dr Oz always manage to piss me off0
-
the only reason I eat more frequent meals is to control my blood sugar to make ti thru the day without feeling sick or getting a headache but I have been told repeatedly that more frequent means upped metabolism and so you are saying this is bogus? please explain and thank youI couldn't find the video of the episode. But the reasoning behind his assertions seem scientifically valid. Here is the timeline for a given day.
6:30 AM: Weigh Yourself (this means you have to get up! Ughh!)
6:35 AM: Exercise
7:30 AM: Eat Breakfast
8:00 AM: Metabolism Boost (occurs because of previous)
10:00 AM: Grocery Shop (a safe time to shop so you don't buy crap)
12:00 PM: Lunch
6:15 PM: Fiber Supplement
6:30 PM: Dinner
He doesn't mention snacks in there but obviously we need them for the in between times.
I wish there was a clip out there on some of this... it really seemed to make sense.
You need to educate yourself if this seems scientifically valid. There is no metabolic advantage to increased meal frequency, so no need to eat breakast or snack in between meals
and who cares when you weigh yourself as scale weight is basically meaningless and tells little of overall body composition0 -
He doesn't mention snacks in there but obviously we need them for the in between times.
I dont always need snacks in fact, there are days I cant even get a meal break because we get slammed at work (I work as a chef)...
my boyfriend works as a cook/chef too and he said he hardly ever has time to eat0 -
the only reason I eat more frequent meals is to control my blood sugar to make ti thru the day without feeling sick or getting a headache but I have been told repeatedly that more frequent means upped metabolism and so you are saying this is bogus? please explain and thank you
The myth of increased meal frequency = great metabolism is from the thought of a more frequent boost from TEF, from lyle mcdonald to easily explain itEat more frequently and metabolic rate goes up more, right? Because you’re stimulating TEF more often. Well, no. Here’s why:
Say we have two people, both eating the same 3000 calories per day from identical macronutrients. One eats 6 meals of 500 calories/meal while the other eats 3 meals of 1000 calories/meal and we’ll assume a TEF of 10%. So the first will have a TEF of 50 calories (10% of 500) 6 times/day. The second will have a TEF of 100 calories (10% of 1000 calories) 3 times/day. Well, 6X50 = 300 calories/day and 3X100 = 300 calories/day. There’s no difference.
also;
Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
"More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging."
Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet. Br J Nutr. 2010 Apr;103(8):1098-101. Epub 2009 Nov 30.
"he main goal of the present study was to investigate whether using a high MF could lead to a greater weight loss than that obtained with a low MF under conditions of similar energy restriction. Subjects were randomised into two treatment arms (high MF = 3 meals+3 snacks/d or low MF = 3 meals/d) and subjected to the same dietary energy restriction of - 2931 kJ/d for 8 weeks. Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34.6 (sd 9.5); BMI 37.1 (sd 4.5) kg/m2) completed the study. Overall, there was a 4.7 % decrease in body weight (P < 0.01); similarly, significant decreases were noted in fat mass ( - 3.1 (sd 2.9) kg; P < 0.01), lean body mass ( - 2.0 (sd 3.1) kg; P < 0.05) and BMI ( - 1.7 (sd 0.8) kg/m2; P < 0.01). However, there were NS differences between the low- and high-MF groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study."0 -
The time can be shifted according to your sleep pattern.
In this example, 6:30 AM reflects wake up time when your body has completed it's primary resting period for the 24 hour cycle.0 -
Good plan, I'm sure it works. That stuff is just common sense, though. He's not the first person to figure out that working out in the morning is a good time to do it, because getting it done first thing usually means you won't put it off until later or risk not doing it. I think the US Army beat him to the punch on that one... Working out at ANY time of day will get the job done. Trying to weight train after fasting (first thing in the morning) is pretty dumb, though. I've tried it and hated it. I'd rather wait until I have my most energy, which is mid-afternoon/early evening. Does Dr. Oz think he's a genius or something? I give him honorable mention for Captain Obvious.0
-
are there other studies to support this theory also? 16 people seems like an awful small amount of people to use for a study, am I correct? sorry I dont know enough about studies to know if this is accurate assumption or not thanks!the only reason I eat more frequent meals is to control my blood sugar to make ti thru the day without feeling sick or getting a headache but I have been told repeatedly that more frequent means upped metabolism and so you are saying this is bogus? please explain and thank you
The myth of increased meal frequency = great metabolism is from the thought of a more frequent boost from TEF, from lyle mcdonald to easily explain itEat more frequently and metabolic rate goes up more, right? Because you’re stimulating TEF more often. Well, no. Here’s why:
Say we have two people, both eating the same 3000 calories per day from identical macronutrients. One eats 6 meals of 500 calories/meal while the other eats 3 meals of 1000 calories/meal and we’ll assume a TEF of 10%. So the first will have a TEF of 50 calories (10% of 500) 6 times/day. The second will have a TEF of 100 calories (10% of 1000 calories) 3 times/day. Well, 6X50 = 300 calories/day and 3X100 = 300 calories/day. There’s no difference.
also;
Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
"More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging."
Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet. Br J Nutr. 2010 Apr;103(8):1098-101. Epub 2009 Nov 30.
"he main goal of the present study was to investigate whether using a high MF could lead to a greater weight loss than that obtained with a low MF under conditions of similar energy restriction. Subjects were randomised into two treatment arms (high MF = 3 meals+3 snacks/d or low MF = 3 meals/d) and subjected to the same dietary energy restriction of - 2931 kJ/d for 8 weeks. Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34.6 (sd 9.5); BMI 37.1 (sd 4.5) kg/m2) completed the study. Overall, there was a 4.7 % decrease in body weight (P < 0.01); similarly, significant decreases were noted in fat mass ( - 3.1 (sd 2.9) kg; P < 0.01), lean body mass ( - 2.0 (sd 3.1) kg; P < 0.05) and BMI ( - 1.7 (sd 0.8) kg/m2; P < 0.01). However, there were NS differences between the low- and high-MF groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study."0 -
He doesn't mention snacks in there but obviously we need them for the in between times.
I dont always need snacks in fact, there are days I cant even get a meal break because we get slammed at work (I work as a chef)...
my boyfriend works as a cook/chef too and he said he hardly ever has time to eat
Working in the food service and education industries basically means you will always be hungry and always be dehydrated, lol. There's NEVER enough time to eat, let alone go pee!!!0 -
are there other studies to support this theory also? 16 people seems like an awful small amount of people to use for a study, am I correct? sorry I dont know enough about studies to know if this is accurate assumption or not thanks!the only reason I eat more frequent meals is to control my blood sugar to make ti thru the day without feeling sick or getting a headache but I have been told repeatedly that more frequent means upped metabolism and so you are saying this is bogus? please explain and thank you
The myth of increased meal frequency = great metabolism is from the thought of a more frequent boost from TEF, from lyle mcdonald to easily explain itEat more frequently and metabolic rate goes up more, right? Because you’re stimulating TEF more often. Well, no. Here’s why:
Say we have two people, both eating the same 3000 calories per day from identical macronutrients. One eats 6 meals of 500 calories/meal while the other eats 3 meals of 1000 calories/meal and we’ll assume a TEF of 10%. So the first will have a TEF of 50 calories (10% of 500) 6 times/day. The second will have a TEF of 100 calories (10% of 1000 calories) 3 times/day. Well, 6X50 = 300 calories/day and 3X100 = 300 calories/day. There’s no difference.
also;
Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
"More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging."
Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet. Br J Nutr. 2010 Apr;103(8):1098-101. Epub 2009 Nov 30.
"he main goal of the present study was to investigate whether using a high MF could lead to a greater weight loss than that obtained with a low MF under conditions of similar energy restriction. Subjects were randomised into two treatment arms (high MF = 3 meals+3 snacks/d or low MF = 3 meals/d) and subjected to the same dietary energy restriction of - 2931 kJ/d for 8 weeks. Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34.6 (sd 9.5); BMI 37.1 (sd 4.5) kg/m2) completed the study. Overall, there was a 4.7 % decrease in body weight (P < 0.01); similarly, significant decreases were noted in fat mass ( - 3.1 (sd 2.9) kg; P < 0.01), lean body mass ( - 2.0 (sd 3.1) kg; P < 0.05) and BMI ( - 1.7 (sd 0.8) kg/m2; P < 0.01). However, there were NS differences between the low- and high-MF groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study."
The number of subjects for a study to be conducted just depends on the study, really. What vets the findings of said study is if the same results can be reproduced by performing the same exact study with a different group of subjects. The more the experiment can be accurately reproduced by other experimenters, the more reliable the findings tend to be, per se.0 -
thank you!
are there other studies to support this theory also? 16 people seems like an awful small amount of people to use for a study, am I correct? sorry I dont know enough about studies to know if this is accurate assumption or not thanks!the only reason I eat more frequent meals is to control my blood sugar to make ti thru the day without feeling sick or getting a headache but I have been told repeatedly that more frequent means upped metabolism and so you are saying this is bogus? please explain and thank you
The myth of increased meal frequency = great metabolism is from the thought of a more frequent boost from TEF, from lyle mcdonald to easily explain itEat more frequently and metabolic rate goes up more, right? Because you’re stimulating TEF more often. Well, no. Here’s why:
Say we have two people, both eating the same 3000 calories per day from identical macronutrients. One eats 6 meals of 500 calories/meal while the other eats 3 meals of 1000 calories/meal and we’ll assume a TEF of 10%. So the first will have a TEF of 50 calories (10% of 500) 6 times/day. The second will have a TEF of 100 calories (10% of 1000 calories) 3 times/day. Well, 6X50 = 300 calories/day and 3X100 = 300 calories/day. There’s no difference.
also;
Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
"More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging."
Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet. Br J Nutr. 2010 Apr;103(8):1098-101. Epub 2009 Nov 30.
"he main goal of the present study was to investigate whether using a high MF could lead to a greater weight loss than that obtained with a low MF under conditions of similar energy restriction. Subjects were randomised into two treatment arms (high MF = 3 meals+3 snacks/d or low MF = 3 meals/d) and subjected to the same dietary energy restriction of - 2931 kJ/d for 8 weeks. Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34.6 (sd 9.5); BMI 37.1 (sd 4.5) kg/m2) completed the study. Overall, there was a 4.7 % decrease in body weight (P < 0.01); similarly, significant decreases were noted in fat mass ( - 3.1 (sd 2.9) kg; P < 0.01), lean body mass ( - 2.0 (sd 3.1) kg; P < 0.05) and BMI ( - 1.7 (sd 0.8) kg/m2; P < 0.01). However, there were NS differences between the low- and high-MF groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study."
The number of subjects for a study to be conducted just depends on the study, really. What vets the findings of said study is if the same results can be reproduced by performing the same exact study with a different group of subjects. The more the experiment can be accurately reproduced by other experimenters, the more reliable the findings tend to be, per se.0 -
Oz is a quack. His advice ranges from obvious to total BS.
QFT.0 -
The best time of day to lose weight is toilet time.
I have some of my best weight loss moments on the scale right after this thats for sure. :laugh:0 -
Does reality actually exist before 8:00am? I've never tested this out, but it seems scary
well i tested it today at quater past 6 turns out other than some creepy guy standing in the middle of the road it dosnt exist :laugh: also 3 large cups of coffee were needed afterwards!!! it is scary for the unprepared!!!
but back to the OP i could never eat dinner after 6 in the evening my dinner is bout half 4 half 5 at the latest so daughter eats with us then get the kids ready for bed for 7 :happy:0 -
Great for people who work a "normal" shift.
I work second shift. I am NOT getting up at 6:30am when I don't get into bed until after 1am or 2am (or later). And I'm sorry, but my last meal is NOT "dinner" at 6pm. I eat my last meal at anywhere from midnight to 2am (it is 1:24am and I am getting ready to eat dinner now).
May work for other people, but what I'm doing works for me and really? That's what counts in my eyes. I'll be honest.. I hate when a "doctor" or anyone else tries to tell people what is best for everyone, what will work for everyone, etc. There are too many variables for all advice to work for every single person.0 -
Good plan, I'm sure it works. That stuff is just common sense, though. He's not the first person to figure out that working out in the morning is a good time to do it, because getting it done first thing usually means you won't put it off until later or risk not doing it. I think the US Army beat him to the punch on that one... Working out at ANY time of day will get the job done. Trying to weight train after fasting (first thing in the morning) is pretty dumb, though. I've tried it and hated it. I'd rather wait until I have my most energy, which is mid-afternoon/early evening. Does Dr. Oz think he's a genius or something? I give him honorable mention for Captain Obvious.
I can assure you of one thing:
Trying to get me to workout when I first wake up is a sure fire way for me to come up with 101 million reasons why I can't do it. Sorry. But, I don't care about the metabolic benefit or whatever... I am NOT getting up early and I am NOT working out as soon as I wake up.
I'll continue with my night work outs. It is when I have the most energy and am going to put 100% into my workout.0 -
Seems good for people who work normal hours. I work midnight to 8 am. Some of it I can related to. I do weigh myself right when I get up for work but that is around 7 or 8 pm, not 630 am. I would imagine it is the same as weighing in at 630 because your stomach is pretty much empty. As for exercise, there is no way I can get exercise in before work. I am just too tired. I find myself working out right after, which is good for me. For me, the time in between eating meals is way too much. I eat about every 3-4 hours.0
-
I can assure you of one thing:
Trying to get me to workout when I first wake up is a sure fire way for me to come up with 101 million reasons why I can't do it. Sorry. But, I don't care about the metabolic benefit or whatever... I am NOT getting up early and I am NOT working out as soon as I wake up.
I'll continue with my night work outs. It is when I have the most energy and am going to put 100% into my workout.
[/quote]
I am with you on this one. I have to do a post work, workout. There is no way I will ever be doing one before work at like 10pm. I would just end up never working out.0 -
My 4 month old baby rules my sleep schedule. If I get to sleep past 6:30, I'm sleeping!
Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter0 -
I couldn't find the video of the episode. But the reasoning behind his assertions seem scientifically valid. Here is the timeline for a given day.
6:30 AM: Weigh Yourself (this means you have to get up! Ughh!)
6:35 AM: Exercise
7:30 AM: Eat Breakfast
8:00 AM: Metabolism Boost (occurs because of previous)
10:00 AM: Grocery Shop (a safe time to shop so you don't buy crap)
12:00 PM: Lunch
6:15 PM: Fiber Supplement
6:30 PM: Dinner
He doesn't mention snacks in there but obviously we need them for the in between times.
I wish there was a clip out there on some of this... it really seemed to make sense.
You need to educate yourself if this seems scientifically valid. There is no metabolic advantage to increased meal frequency, so no need to eat breakast or snack in between meals
and who cares when you weigh yourself as scale weight is basically meaningless and tells little of overall body composition
:drinker:0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions