4 ms·

This is pseudo science, there are droves of scientific literature that shows that meal timing is irrelevant and that as long as macronutrient content is similar

by tjogin 14y ago

This is pseudo science, there are droves of scientific literature that shows that meal timing is irrelevant and that as long as macronutrient content is similar, a calorie is a calorie.

sgift 14y ago
And there are droves of scientific literature that show that meal timing is important and even if macronutrient content is similar, a calorie is not a calorie. The simple fact is: No one was able to prove anything beyond shallow platitudes ("If you eat three tons of flesh each day you will get fat too!" "If you eat nothing for month you will get lean!").
- dalke 14y ago
  A quick search of PubMed finds some recent (within the last year) papers like: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357955 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357955 - "Timing of food intake predicts weight loss effectiveness" It starts "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." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23167985 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23167985 - "Effects of exercise before or after meal ingestion on fat balance and postprandial metabolism in overweight men."; "It is unclear how timing of exercise relative to meal ingestion influences substrate balance and metabolic responses." These make me think that there isn't "droves of scientific literature" which show the importance of meal timing in humans, much less characterize the magnitude of the importance. (Eg, if there's a measurable 1% difference in overall effect on weight then it's statistically significant finding, but almost certainly not enough for most people to care about.)
anthonyb 14y ago
Where is the parent saying anything about meal timing? It's about the effect on your body of a particular meal. Carbs and sugars spike insulin much more than fats or protein.
- tjogin 14y ago
  That is an issue of meal timing. Individual meals doesn't matter. Transient insulin spikes are irrelevant, what matters is your overall expenditure vs intake.
  - s_baby 14y ago
    Don't feed the trolls.
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    Insulin spikes are completely relevant, since insulin signals your fat cells to take up energy from your blood stream. Now you have no energy and feel hungry again.
    - tjogin 14y ago
      It doesn't work that way. Show me a study that concludes that blood glucose levels have not been meaningfully increased after a meal due to it all going straight to adipose tissue -- in humans -- and I'll show you the next Nobel Prize winner. Insulin spikes are irrelevant in so far as you will lose weight at a calorie deficit, insulin spikes or not. Also, fat can be synthesized in the absence of insulin spikes. http://www.jlr.org/content/30/11/1727 http://www.jlr.org/content/30/11/1727 Physiologically, what matters is a caloric deficit. Execution wise, some foods make this easier than others, but that is highly individual. "Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize" http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748
      - anthonyb 14y ago
        Yes it does work that way. Steady levels of insulin make it much easier to maintain a caloric deficit. If your blood sugar is yo-yoing all over the place, you're going to get cravings, increase your risk of bingeing, etc. While it's easy to fall back on 'calories in, calories out', weight loss has much more to do with psychology, physiology and compliance than physics. edit: Here's a nice review article from Nature, which tells you all you need to know: http://141.213.232.243/bitstream/2027.42/62568/1/414799a.pdf http://141.213.232.243/bitstream/2027.42/62568/1/414799a.pdf It starts: Despite periods of feeding and fasting, plasma glucose remains in a narrow range between 4 and 7 mM in normal individuals.

by tjogin 14y ago

This is pseudo science, there are droves of scientific literature that shows that meal timing is irrelevant and that as long as macronutrient content is similar, a calorie is a calorie.

sgift 14y ago

And there are droves of scientific literature that show that meal timing is important and even if macronutrient content is similar, a calorie is not a calorie. The simple fact is: No one was able to prove anything beyond shallow platitudes ("If you eat three tons of flesh each day you will get fat too!" "If you eat nothing for month you will get lean!").

dalke 14y ago
A quick search of PubMed finds some recent (within the last year) papers like: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357955 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357955 - "Timing of food intake predicts weight loss effectiveness" It starts "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." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23167985 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23167985 - "Effects of exercise before or after meal ingestion on fat balance and postprandial metabolism in overweight men."; "It is unclear how timing of exercise relative to meal ingestion influences substrate balance and metabolic responses." These make me think that there isn't "droves of scientific literature" which show the importance of meal timing in humans, much less characterize the magnitude of the importance. (Eg, if there's a measurable 1% difference in overall effect on weight then it's statistically significant finding, but almost certainly not enough for most people to care about.)

anthonyb 14y ago

Where is the parent saying anything about meal timing? It's about the effect on your body of a particular meal. Carbs and sugars spike insulin much more than fats or protein.

tjogin 14y ago
That is an issue of meal timing. Individual meals doesn't matter. Transient insulin spikes are irrelevant, what matters is your overall expenditure vs intake.
- s_baby 14y ago
  Don't feed the trolls.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  Insulin spikes are completely relevant, since insulin signals your fat cells to take up energy from your blood stream. Now you have no energy and feel hungry again.
  - tjogin 14y ago
    It doesn't work that way. Show me a study that concludes that blood glucose levels have not been meaningfully increased after a meal due to it all going straight to adipose tissue -- in humans -- and I'll show you the next Nobel Prize winner. Insulin spikes are irrelevant in so far as you will lose weight at a calorie deficit, insulin spikes or not. Also, fat can be synthesized in the absence of insulin spikes. http://www.jlr.org/content/30/11/1727 http://www.jlr.org/content/30/11/1727 Physiologically, what matters is a caloric deficit. Execution wise, some foods make this easier than others, but that is highly individual. "Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize" http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748
    - anthonyb 14y ago
      Yes it does work that way. Steady levels of insulin make it much easier to maintain a caloric deficit. If your blood sugar is yo-yoing all over the place, you're going to get cravings, increase your risk of bingeing, etc. While it's easy to fall back on 'calories in, calories out', weight loss has much more to do with psychology, physiology and compliance than physics. edit: Here's a nice review article from Nature, which tells you all you need to know: http://141.213.232.243/bitstream/2027.42/62568/1/414799a.pdf http://141.213.232.243/bitstream/2027.42/62568/1/414799a.pdf It starts: Despite periods of feeding and fasting, plasma glucose remains in a narrow range between 4 and 7 mM in normal individuals.