2 ms·

Do you have any specific questions? I don't feel like a source is necessary here because this is generally accepted as fact and has been reproduced countless t

by wdewind 11y ago

Do you have any specific questions? I don't feel like a source is necessary here because this is generally accepted as fact and has been reproduced countless times. There is no science showing caloric timing being significant (physically) in terms of weight management. Mentally (as your sibling comment points out) sure, but physically absolutely not. You don't get fat from eating late, you get fat from eating an extra meal late.

omarchowdhury 11y ago
The specific question I have is regarding what the liver does if very large meals are eaten within a short window (hence the relevancy of caloric/meal timing). Can't the liver only hold a certain amount of glycogen before having to transport the excess matter to the fat cells?
- wdewind 11y ago
  Sure, but since you've packed such a large percentage of your calories into this one meal, what happens to that fat at the later time when you would otherwise be eating again?
  - omarchowdhury 11y ago
    Then all things being equal would it not be better to space out short meals to prevent fat generation at all?
    - wdewind 11y ago
      It shouldn't really make any difference. The point is fat is an energy store and your body is pretty good at storing excess calories and then using them again when needed. Things do get a little more interesting, and the science becomes a little weaker, when you start thinking about nutritional timing in the context of body composition instead of overall weight. For instance, muscle protein synthesis remains pretty constant in someone with protein at most meals. But you are able to "spike" it about once every 3 hours (the mechanism seems to have a threshold around 8g of leucine, after which it can't be spiked again for another 3 hours). So in theory the optimal way to eat the same number of calories, all else being equal, is evenly divided into a meal every three hours you are awake. But it's a micro-optimization and doesn't make a huge difference, and again the science isn't super well reproduced there. People certainly succeed at elite levels with many different meal timings.

by wdewind 11y ago

omarchowdhury 11y ago

The specific question I have is regarding what the liver does if very large meals are eaten within a short window (hence the relevancy of caloric/meal timing). Can't the liver only hold a certain amount of glycogen before having to transport the excess matter to the fat cells?

wdewind 11y ago
Sure, but since you've packed such a large percentage of your calories into this one meal, what happens to that fat at the later time when you would otherwise be eating again?
- omarchowdhury 11y ago
  Then all things being equal would it not be better to space out short meals to prevent fat generation at all?
  - wdewind 11y ago
    It shouldn't really make any difference. The point is fat is an energy store and your body is pretty good at storing excess calories and then using them again when needed. Things do get a little more interesting, and the science becomes a little weaker, when you start thinking about nutritional timing in the context of body composition instead of overall weight. For instance, muscle protein synthesis remains pretty constant in someone with protein at most meals. But you are able to "spike" it about once every 3 hours (the mechanism seems to have a threshold around 8g of leucine, after which it can't be spiked again for another 3 hours). So in theory the optimal way to eat the same number of calories, all else being equal, is evenly divided into a meal every three hours you are awake. But it's a micro-optimization and doesn't make a huge difference, and again the science isn't super well reproduced there. People certainly succeed at elite levels with many different meal timings.