3 ms·

> Yes, but your body won't be able to use it's stored fat in the presence of insulin. If you keep that up long enough, you can only burn calories coming in. If

> Yes, but your body won't be able to use it's stored fat in the presence of insulin. If you keep that up long enough, you can only burn calories coming in. If you eat a lot of meals AND a caloric deficit your body needs to decrease your metabolism, mostly heat, thus cold hands and feet. Right but what happens when you no longer inputting calories and thus no longer have high insulin? Then you start burning the fat again. You can only keep your insulin levels pathologically elevated if you are eating enough to support that over the long term, regardless of when you eat. Again, your body is very good at supplementing energy needs with fat when it needs to. Again there is no study showing meal time having any impact when calories are balanced, and several confirming the opposite. > It absolutely does matter, because your body does not burn a static amount of calories but adapts to the situation. Slowing metabolism is real. If you can't burn energy (low caloric input but frequent meals), your body will do what it needs to survive. Your body adapts to a short term situation (a meal and the small post-prandial period) but in the long term (24 hour period) it makes zero difference. > Slowing metabolism is real. Yes but it's also reversible by, shockingly, increasing caloric demand. To be very clear, the proof required for what you are suggesting is a study with a minimum of 2 groups eating the same exact meals but at different times, and being forced to finish the entire meal and experiencing different outcomes. This has never happened, and based on our current understanding of metabolism never will. Maybe it would change, but this would be a massive massive change in our understanding of how the human body deals with energy.

dorfsmay 8y ago
> To be very clear, the proof required for what you are suggesting is a study with a minimum of 2 groups eating the same exact meals but at different times, and being forced to finish the entire meal and experiencing different outcomes. This has never happened, and based on our current understanding of metabolism never will. Humans, difference in body composition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wurjhns/vol8/iss1/4/ https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wurjhns/vol8/iss1/4/ Again difc in body composition in humans, but references to previous studies showing difference in mass in mice: https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/wp-content/uploads/bmi2.pdf https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/wp-content/uploads/...
- wdewind 8y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted, and I appreciate you finding studies. > Humans, difference in body composition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ So this study is actually not bad. It has three small flaws that I can find, but is still compelling regardless. It is one of the only studies I have ever seen that did a decent job controlling the food. I'd like to see it repeated and at a larger scale, of course. The flaws are: 1. Malabsorption is a real issue when consuming nearly 2400 calories in a small window. This could be a real confounder with regards to metabolic differences. The malabsorption could be resulting in fewer calories being consumed. 2. Massive withdrawal rate in comparison to other dietary studies. The authors address this, I think reasonably, by concluding that IF is actually really difficult for a lot of people to comply to. This isn't necessarily a strike against IF being metabolically better, but if we dig into exactly why the diet is hard to comply to and force the people who didn't want to comply to comply, we might get different metabolic results. There is a large potential for survivorship bias here. 3. Sample size is tiny blah blah. This doesn't disregard the study but it does limit its applicability. Good find, though, thanks! As for the other two, I don't think they meet the requirements really.

dorfsmay 8y ago

> To be very clear, the proof required for what you are suggesting is a study with a minimum of 2 groups eating the same exact meals but at different times, and being forced to finish the entire meal and experiencing different outcomes. This has never happened, and based on our current understanding of metabolism never will. Humans, difference in body composition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wurjhns/vol8/iss1/4/ https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wurjhns/vol8/iss1/4/ Again difc in body composition in humans, but references to previous studies showing difference in mass in mice: https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/wp-content/uploads/bmi2.pdf https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/wp-content/uploads/...

wdewind 8y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted, and I appreciate you finding studies. > Humans, difference in body composition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ So this study is actually not bad. It has three small flaws that I can find, but is still compelling regardless. It is one of the only studies I have ever seen that did a decent job controlling the food. I'd like to see it repeated and at a larger scale, of course. The flaws are: 1. Malabsorption is a real issue when consuming nearly 2400 calories in a small window. This could be a real confounder with regards to metabolic differences. The malabsorption could be resulting in fewer calories being consumed. 2. Massive withdrawal rate in comparison to other dietary studies. The authors address this, I think reasonably, by concluding that IF is actually really difficult for a lot of people to comply to. This isn't necessarily a strike against IF being metabolically better, but if we dig into exactly why the diet is hard to comply to and force the people who didn't want to comply to comply, we might get different metabolic results. There is a large potential for survivorship bias here. 3. Sample size is tiny blah blah. This doesn't disregard the study but it does limit its applicability. Good find, though, thanks! As for the other two, I don't think they meet the requirements really.