Meal Timing is Important

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe there is truth to this. I've been dealing with a lot and haven't had much of an appetite at dinner lately. So I've just been having something small or cut up grilled chicken breast and skipping my normal dessert. I saw almost an immediate difference on the scale and also feel a lot less bloated.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

Well done PP. Keep going.

[Anonymous]

Yes, i afere. I did that most od my life and ate small dinner or just fish for dinner and lunch. I would have pastry for breakfast or curries or pasta, and large portions and I think that eating large dinners is a custom that should not exist.

[Anonymous]

^^ btw I have told this same technique to those that asked me how I eat, I am still slim at 52, and none took my advice. So whatever, why ask, are overweight and then just decide that I’m blessed with great genes, when mom is obese.

[Anonymous]

Any of these timing things fly in the face of CICO.

[Anonymous]

The best study is the one you do on yourself. No one person is the same. Figure out what works for you and do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People have said this for a long time, but people say all kinds of stuff about diet that isn't necessarily true. It's helpful to see some science around it.

For me it's really hard to eat this way - it's tough to restrict calories/portions at night when I'm tired after a long day and my willpower is at its nadir. But I've been trying to at least cut off my eating 3hrs before bed

I am the same way, which is why whenever I cut fat, I save a large bulk of my calories for the evening. It never prevented me from losing weight. Calorie deficit still remains the most important factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any of these timing things fly in the face of CICO.

No they are not. CICO is what ultimately determines whether and how much you will lose. As I wrote in my post just above. I eat in the exact opposite way to what is suggested in that article and I still lose without any problem. And the reason is: ..... wait for it ..... CALORIE DEFICTI!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any of these timing things fly in the face of CICO.

No they are not. CICO is what ultimately determines whether and how much you will lose. As I wrote in my post just above. I eat in the exact opposite way to what is suggested in that article and I still lose without any problem. And the reason is: ..... wait for it ..... CALORIE DEFICTI!

If you read the Washington Post article in which they describe the relevant study, it flies in the face of CICO. This was a study done under total observation and all the calories were measured and equal between the groups. Read the article next time instead of just trying to shove your anecdote at people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best study is the one you do on yourself. No one person is the same. Figure out what works for you and do that.

Yep. What works for some people doesn’t necessarily work for everyone. Everyone is different and there are no quick fixes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any of these timing things fly in the face of CICO.

No they are not. CICO is what ultimately determines whether and how much you will lose. As I wrote in my post just above. I eat in the exact opposite way to what is suggested in that article and I still lose without any problem. And the reason is: ..... wait for it ..... CALORIE DEFICTI!

If you read the Washington Post article in which they describe the relevant study, it flies in the face of CICO. This was a study done under total observation and all the calories were measured and equal between the groups. Read the article next time instead of just trying to shove your anecdote at people.

I read the article. There is nothing denying CICO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any of these timing things fly in the face of CICO.

No they are not. CICO is what ultimately determines whether and how much you will lose. As I wrote in my post just above. I eat in the exact opposite way to what is suggested in that article and I still lose without any problem. And the reason is: ..... wait for it ..... CALORIE DEFICTI!

If you read the Washington Post article in which they describe the relevant study, it flies in the face of CICO. This was a study done under total observation and all the calories were measured and equal between the groups. Read the article next time instead of just trying to shove your anecdote at people.

I read the article. There is nothing denying CICO.

Read harder.

“This emerging field of research, known as chrono-nutrition, represents a paradigm shift in how nutrition researchers think about food and health. Instead of focusing solely on nutrients and calories, scientists are increasingly looking at meal timing and discovering that it can have striking effects on your weight, appetite, chronic disease risk and your body’s ability to burn and store fat.“

“On a separate occasion, they had the same participants follow a late-eating schedule, with each meal pushed back four hours over a six-day period. The study was small but tightly controlled, involving 16 people who were closely monitored, provided all their meals, and kept on a strict sleep and wake schedule in a laboratory setting. […] The study found that eating later caused the participants to burn less fat and fewer calories, and pushed their fat cells to store more fat.“

It does, in fact, deny CICO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any of these timing things fly in the face of CICO.

No they are not. CICO is what ultimately determines whether and how much you will lose. As I wrote in my post just above. I eat in the exact opposite way to what is suggested in that article and I still lose without any problem. And the reason is: ..... wait for it ..... CALORIE DEFICTI!

If you read the Washington Post article in which they describe the relevant study, it flies in the face of CICO. This was a study done under total observation and all the calories were measured and equal between the groups. Read the article next time instead of just trying to shove your anecdote at people.

I read the article. There is nothing denying CICO.

Read harder.

“This emerging field of research, known as chrono-nutrition, represents a paradigm shift in how nutrition researchers think about food and health. Instead of focusing solely on nutrients and calories, scientists are increasingly looking at meal timing and discovering that it can have striking effects on your weight, appetite, chronic disease risk and your body’s ability to burn and store fat.“

“On a separate occasion, they had the same participants follow a late-eating schedule, with each meal pushed back four hours over a six-day period. The study was small but tightly controlled, involving 16 people who were closely monitored, provided all their meals, and kept on a strict sleep and wake schedule in a laboratory setting. […] The study found that eating later caused the participants to burn less fat and fewer calories, and pushed their fat cells to store more fat.“

It does, in fact, deny CICO.

No, you need to read harder. The first para states that certain timing might make you hungrier and potentially affecting your intake. The other para does not control for energy expenditure. If you do not eat early in the day, you might be less energetic and burn less calories than if you have a nutritious breakfast. All that the article says is that meal timing might affect your total consumption and calorie expenditure, not that CICO does not work. That article and any of those studies does not support that in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any of these timing things fly in the face of CICO.

No they are not. CICO is what ultimately determines whether and how much you will lose. As I wrote in my post just above. I eat in the exact opposite way to what is suggested in that article and I still lose without any problem. And the reason is: ..... wait for it ..... CALORIE DEFICTI!

If you read the Washington Post article in which they describe the relevant study, it flies in the face of CICO. This was a study done under total observation and all the calories were measured and equal between the groups. Read the article next time instead of just trying to shove your anecdote at people.

I read the article. There is nothing denying CICO.

Read harder.

“This emerging field of research, known as chrono-nutrition, represents a paradigm shift in how nutrition researchers think about food and health. Instead of focusing solely on nutrients and calories, scientists are increasingly looking at meal timing and discovering that it can have striking effects on your weight, appetite, chronic disease risk and your body’s ability to burn and store fat.“

“On a separate occasion, they had the same participants follow a late-eating schedule, with each meal pushed back four hours over a six-day period. The study was small but tightly controlled, involving 16 people who were closely monitored, provided all their meals, and kept on a strict sleep and wake schedule in a laboratory setting. […] The study found that eating later caused the participants to burn less fat and fewer calories, and pushed their fat cells to store more fat.“

It does, in fact, deny CICO.

No, you need to read harder. The first para states that certain timing might make you hungrier and potentially affecting your intake. The other para does not control for energy expenditure. If you do not eat early in the day, you might be less energetic and burn less calories than if you have a nutritious breakfast. All that the article says is that meal timing might affect your total consumption and calorie expenditure, not that CICO does not work. That article and any of those studies does not support that in any way.

Except for the references study in which the calories were kept the same between the two groups. You’re really tied to CICO being the only thing that matters. 😆

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any of these timing things fly in the face of CICO.

No they are not. CICO is what ultimately determines whether and how much you will lose. As I wrote in my post just above. I eat in the exact opposite way to what is suggested in that article and I still lose without any problem. And the reason is: ..... wait for it ..... CALORIE DEFICTI!

If you read the Washington Post article in which they describe the relevant study, it flies in the face of CICO. This was a study done under total observation and all the calories were measured and equal between the groups. Read the article next time instead of just trying to shove your anecdote at people.

I read the article. There is nothing denying CICO.

Read harder.

“This emerging field of research, known as chrono-nutrition, represents a paradigm shift in how nutrition researchers think about food and health. Instead of focusing solely on nutrients and calories, scientists are increasingly looking at meal timing and discovering that it can have striking effects on your weight, appetite, chronic disease risk and your body’s ability to burn and store fat.“

“On a separate occasion, they had the same participants follow a late-eating schedule, with each meal pushed back four hours over a six-day period. The study was small but tightly controlled, involving 16 people who were closely monitored, provided all their meals, and kept on a strict sleep and wake schedule in a laboratory setting. […] The study found that eating later caused the participants to burn less fat and fewer calories, and pushed their fat cells to store more fat.“

It does, in fact, deny CICO.

No, you need to read harder. The first para states that certain timing might make you hungrier and potentially affecting your intake. The other para does not control for energy expenditure. If you do not eat early in the day, you might be less energetic and burn less calories than if you have a nutritious breakfast. All that the article says is that meal timing might affect your total consumption and calorie expenditure, not that CICO does not work. That article and any of those studies does not support that in any way.

Except for the references study in which the calories were kept the same between the two groups. You’re really tied to CICO being the only thing that matters. 😆

The INTAKE calories. They did not control or measure the output. NEAT can be significantly affected by your meal timing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any of these timing things fly in the face of CICO.

No they are not. CICO is what ultimately determines whether and how much you will lose. As I wrote in my post just above. I eat in the exact opposite way to what is suggested in that article and I still lose without any problem. And the reason is: ..... wait for it ..... CALORIE DEFICTI!

If you read the Washington Post article in which they describe the relevant study, it flies in the face of CICO. This was a study done under total observation and all the calories were measured and equal between the groups. Read the article next time instead of just trying to shove your anecdote at people.

I read the article. There is nothing denying CICO.

Read harder.

“This emerging field of research, known as chrono-nutrition, represents a paradigm shift in how nutrition researchers think about food and health. Instead of focusing solely on nutrients and calories, scientists are increasingly looking at meal timing and discovering that it can have striking effects on your weight, appetite, chronic disease risk and your body’s ability to burn and store fat.“

“On a separate occasion, they had the same participants follow a late-eating schedule, with each meal pushed back four hours over a six-day period. The study was small but tightly controlled, involving 16 people who were closely monitored, provided all their meals, and kept on a strict sleep and wake schedule in a laboratory setting. […] The study found that eating later caused the participants to burn less fat and fewer calories, and pushed their fat cells to store more fat.“

It does, in fact, deny CICO.

No, you need to read harder. The first para states that certain timing might make you hungrier and potentially affecting your intake. The other para does not control for energy expenditure. If you do not eat early in the day, you might be less energetic and burn less calories than if you have a nutritious breakfast. All that the article says is that meal timing might affect your total consumption and calorie expenditure, not that CICO does not work. That article and any of those studies does not support that in any way.

Except for the references study in which the calories were kept the same between the two groups. You’re really tied to CICO being the only thing that matters. 😆

If you look at the study, they are actually analyzing the impact of meal timing on energy intake and energy expenditure. Meal timing is just a factor that affects CICO. The research at max show you how to make the deficit less painful by optimizing your meal timing, but it in no way denies that you still need an energy deficit to lose fat.