Timing of food intake predicts weight loss effectivness.

[anzel]

In a PubMed study we see that early lunch eaters lost more....

Erratum in
Int J Obes (Lond). 2013 Apr;37(4):624.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
There is emerging literature demonstrating a relationship between the timing of feeding and weight regulation in animals. However, whether the timing of food intake influences the success of a weight-loss diet in humans is unknown.

OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate the role of food timing in weight-loss effectiveness in a sample of 420 individuals who followed a 20-week weight-loss treatment.

METHODS:
Participants (49.5% female subjects; age (mean ± s.d.): 42 ± 11 years; BMI: 31.4 ± 5.4 kg m(-2)) were grouped in early eaters and late eaters, according to the timing of the main meal (lunch in this Mediterranean population). 51% of the subjects were early eaters and 49% were late eaters (lunch time before and after 1500 hours, respectively), energy intake and expenditure, appetite hormones, CLOCK genotype, sleep duration and chronotype were studied.

RESULTS:
Late lunch eaters lost less weight and displayed a slower weight-loss rate during the 20 weeks of treatment than early eaters (P=0.002). Surprisingly, energy intake, dietary composition, estimated energy expenditure, appetite hormones and sleep duration was similar between both groups. Nevertheless, late eaters were more evening types, had less energetic breakfasts and skipped breakfast more frequently that early eaters (all; P<0.05). CLOCK rs4580704 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) associated with the timing of the main meal (P=0.015) with a higher frequency of minor allele (C) carriers among the late eaters (P=0.041). Neither sleep duration, nor CLOCK SNPs or morning/evening chronotype was independently associated with weight loss (all; P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:
Eating late may influence the success of weight-loss therapy. Novel therapeutic strategies should incorporate not only the caloric intake and macronutrient distribution - as is classically done - but also the timing of food.

Enjoy your day!

Anzel
Euro-Pharmacies.net

 

[BigSwolenPussy]

There are sooooo many variables to this study.

 

[anzel]

There are sooooo many variables to this study.

That is true can you point some out so we can have a better picture of it please?... a good portion of these food studies are full of variables but are you saying this study is completely worthless? At least it's something better than say what a guy at the gym tells you. This study makes a good attempt to bring something together. This along with all other studies combined can give a much better look at the subject...

Anzel
Euro-Pharmacies.net

 

[BigSwolenPussy]

Just a few things that are vague at best...

A late lunch has nothing to do with weight loss. Factors that would make a difference would be the time the person woke up, if, what and when they ate breakfast, did they have a snack between and even what activities were done up until the point that they ate lunch.

Sleep is also a factor. Less sleep could possibly mean more calories burned as sleeping typically slows metabolism. Then again, if they sat on the couch eating ice cream and potato chips, this would also affect weight loss.

This is all stuff that I feel like most of us know but maybe not.

 

[anzel]

Well they pretty much covered all those variablesame you just mentioned....

Here is a quote from what is above...

"Late lunch eaters lost less weight and displayed a slower weight-loss rate during the 20 weeks of treatment than early eaters (P=0.002). Surprisingly, energy intake, dietary composition, estimated energy expenditure, appetite hormones and sleep duration was similar between both groups. Nevertheless, late eaters were more evening types, had less energetic breakfasts and skipped breakfast more "

Although they didn't get into detail about these variables it looks like at some level they were at least aware of them and possible even paid meticulous attention to these details.

Anzel
Euro-Pharmacies.net

 

[BigSwolenPussy]

Yeah, either way to say that the time that someone eats predicts weight loss effectiveness is untrue. There are way too many variables.


You can lose weight fast just by eating lunch at 3pm if you don't eat anything else for the day. Because your body will not retain enough calories to maintain current weight.
You can lose weight if you up your total calories but start eating every 2 hours if you have been eating 2 meals per day for an extended period of time because it will speed up metabolism.
You can also lose weight by eating lunch at 2pm if you begin cardio and burn more calories that you consume.
You can gain weight if you eat lunch at 11am if you eat 5000 more calories throughout the day. Because you will be above maintenance levels.

4 variables that are all true that make that statement untrue lol

Not being a dick, just making a point lol

 

[anzel]

You are certainly correct but not with this study... let's re-quote and break it down a little.

" energy intake, dietary composition, estimated energy expenditure, appetite hormones and sleep duration was similar between both groups"

So by energy intake they mean food or more importantly ...calories.
Dietary com**********.or WHAT they ate.

So right there it looks like the 2 groups were monitored for what they ate and how much or calories.

They also measured appetite hormones in both groups...that's a pretty significant variable because it was a way to actually gauge how hungry or not hungry the subjects felt.

They also monitored sleep duration....you actually pointed this out in your post above..you said how much sleep they got was an important variable...which they clearly monitored here.

So pretty much every fault that claimed the study was guilty of having in terms of hidden variables was addressed.

 

[anzel]

Yeah, either way to say that the time that someone eats predicts weight loss effectiveness is untrue. There are way too many variables.


You can lose weight fast just by eating lunch at 3pm if you don't eat anything else for the day. Because your body will not retain enough calories to maintain current weight.
You can lose weight if you up your total calories but start eating every 2 hours if you have been eating 2 meals per day for an extended period of time because it will speed up metabolism.
You can also lose weight by eating lunch at 2pm if you begin cardio and burn more calories that you consume.
You can gain weight if you eat lunch at 11am if you eat 5000 more calories throughout the day. Because you will be above maintenance levels.

4 variables that are all true that make that statement untrue lol

Not being a dick, just making a point lol

Everything you wrote are actually WHAT IFS. the quoted section of the study clearly explains that the 2 groups were SIMILAR in every aspect mentioned. Yes what if you eat lunch at 3 bit nothing else all day.....but it says that's not the case. Each group was monitored and both groups SIMILAR.

 

[BigSwolenPussy]

Well, looks like I'm going to start eating lunch before 3pm from now on if that's all it takes. All these years, I've dieted and done cardio to lose weight. I'm stoked!!!

 

[oldmusclemike]

When I dieted down for my shows , I kept it Simple. I lowered calories and upped my Cardio. I paid NO attention to when I ate except that I ate every 2-1/2 hours to keep a steady intake (fuel) to keep up with my training n muscle need.

In my case I took 3 months +/- to get down to where I needed to be on weigh in day. Just for me and my needs I kept it simple by counting calories and watching the scale.

Just my case n point

 

[anzel]

Bigswole....let's not change the parameters of our discussion midway please.
This is merely a study. For you or anyone else to use as a tool to help or guide or to ignore and consider a waste of time. That's entirely dependent on the reader.
But your first post was that the science was bad (ie methods were bad) claiming that there were too many unanswered variables. All I did was quoted once then twice that all of these variables you mentioned actually were answered and considered in the methods.
This was a very short read and hard to actually miss this but you did.
I just pointed out that your original argument was moot because the study covered the variables.

So now you are saying what? That you must not need diet or cardio and just eat lunch according to how the subjects ate lunch? So it seems your trying to navigate away from the original argument and now find a way to downplay the findings in the study. The study says what it says....

All it is is a study. That's it. Nothing earth shattering and I'm sure we can find things wrong with it. But your original argument was that the study was bad cause they didn't cover your mentioned variables when clearly they did.

So a bit of a waste of time for us no? And to sum it all up you decide to make a statement that you don't need cardio anymore... what's the point? I don't think this is a study to prove you don't need cardio or diet. In fact it's not. It's just science. They wanted to see if eating a certain times had an effect on fatloss. Apparently they showed it....in this study.... but no one is saying hey if you wanna get stage ready just eat at certain times and your good.
Don't read into the study. Just take it as it says .

Anzel
Euro-Pharmacies.net

 

[BigSwolenPussy]

Anzel,

I am again merely stating that the study that you copy/pasted has to many variables to take seriously.

The information that was given in your post is worthless to anyone without clearly defining the above mentioned variables. I feel like I'm reading one of those click bait ads on social media. "Man loses 50 lbs in 90days by not eating beef" however the man had liposuction, gastric bypass or god forbid....cancer
We get a ton of newbs on here that are sensitive to what they read and clearly believe anything that is told to them regardless of facts. I could site 10 post in the last month or two where some newb asks how much tren to use on a first cycle because someone posted a cycle on another site with all the gains that they made without putting in all the variables(ie-AAS experience, diet, training ect...).
My response to this post was only to mention and highlight what was missing in order for something like this to even be considered by a reasonable person looking for a way to lose weight.
Just to be clear, I know that cardio and diet are absolutely a factor in weight loss as is sleep. After over 20 years of this lifestyle, I have picked up on a few things.
I was being facetious when I said that I was going to start eating lunch before 3(as this article suggest) and expected to lose weight without proper diet and cardio. I was making a point(again) that this article clearly does not give enough information to be taken seriously.

No disrespect bro. I just want to make sure that some simple minded twit doesn't come here reading this article then wastes months or years of his/her life eating early meals just to find out that it takes much more than that.

 

[juced_porkchop]

I think timing and what/how you eat matters. the study is not worthless and gives to what I have seen personally also. ofcourse just eating early wont help wight loss if you still eat like crap or are not very active or healthy, BUT eating decent diet and early in day with lighter food at end I feel works better then just eating the same set diet late in the day IMO
both matter. more what you eat, but timing (towards your day be it if you work nights or days, thats not the point. mid day (of your day) lunch is lunch regardless fo time, its to WHEN YOU wake up and go to bed. this study still covers that, its not what exact hr, its what YOUR lunch time is and what YOUR mid day is, if you wake up at 4pm because you work nights then your lunch would be closer to 9pm. if you get up at 7 or 8 its closer to noon.

 

[anzel]

Bigswole... you originally said ...too many variables....I asked which ones....you stated quite a few in your 2nd post...I answered back that all the variables you mentioned were all mentioned in the study...

Your last response...
"The information that was given in your post is worthless to anyone without clearly defining the above mentioned variables"....
We are going around in circles!

Also any study that is out there can be useful to somebody. If not you then someone else.
Personally I found it useful. So if I found it useful maybe someone else will too.


Anzel
Euro-Pharmacies.net

 

[BigSwolenPussy]

This is the only variable that was somewhat addressed in this vague post. "Nevertheless, late eaters were more evening types(wow, whatever that means), had less energetic breakfasts(please define WTF this means) and skipped breakfast(ok cool, so they fucked up their metabolism and did something different than the other group) more frequently that early eaters"


Here is the whole 8 page study that is a boring read but actually shows the variables that I asked for:

Timing of food intake predicts weight loss effectiveness : International Journal of Obesity


Now this post has some details and members can make an educated decision on whether to eat lunch before 3pm.

There goes an hour of my life that I won't ever get back...

 

[oldmusclemike]

I am just giving my OP, Only. I am just gonna comment on the article and I found it to go nowhere. Of course Anzel you are stimulating some thought process and I understand , ok Good !

^^^ IMOP

 

[anzel]

Yeah I read the 8 page study. I didn't post the link because we aren't supposed to post links anymore. So I just used the short summary for the post to avoid a word wall. Anyway, I found it interesting and it was useful to me. What can I say.... I think the study stands on its own and we are at a difference.
Bigswole you are now making your point by backing it up and showing some more depth than what you originally wrote. Your 1st post was just a quick sentence with nothing to back what you are saying. So now you are saying something.....and if you feel you are wasting your time with this then move on. You don't have to comment on everything. But if you do it would be nice if you are going to give a little more substance
Just as a warning for the future...I read these studies or find them in other posts and enjoy them so I will be posting more of them...so comment away if you wish but if I have a response I'm giving it. It's the way it works.

Ok good debate see you around.

Anzel
Euro-Pharmacies.net