Is it about when you eat not what you eat?

previous topic · next topic
mrspackrat

Joined: Aug 10
Posts: 490

      quote  
Posted: 25 Mar 2013, 09:10
While I don't think we can eat whatever we want and as much as we want, I do think there is something to when we eat/how often we eat. I saw this article "The perfect time to eat lunch" and it talks about our modern way of eating and how it's messed up our metabolism.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/03/24/perfect-time-to-eat-lunch/

I have been a member of this site for almost 3 years. Despite slow weightloss I've always hung in there hoping one day all my exercise and good eating would be reflected on the scales. I replaced refined carbs with vegetables or healthier carbs, dramactically cut sugars, I exchanged fatty proteins for healthy proteins/fish. I ate the recommended 5-6 times a day to "keep my metabolism humming." I always ran a daily calorie deficit (calories in/calories out, right?).

Then this past January, I read a couple of articles saying its not what you eat but when you eat. I started following an eating "schedule" to get my body back on track. Still keeping with my healthy way of eating, I stuck to only 3 meals a day, no snacking between, no over-eating at any 1 meal, no eating 3-4 hours before bed. I do have bad eating days and realized I can't be this routined everyday of my life so I also adopted the 5:2 eating plan where 2 days a week I fast, 5 days a week I eat my normal/reasonable diet (article recommends alternative day fasting--which should only be done under a doctors consent). Call it coincidence but I'm now just a few pounds away from my goal. I've made more progress in my weightloss journey since January than I did in the past year.

So food for thought...I've taken a lot of advice from the people on this site and through trial and error I found something that perosnally worked for me. Just trying to pass the information along as it may help someone else.
this damn tracker below hasn't been right in months! My current weight is 137!
Spacey47

Joined: Apr 12
Posts: 916

      quote  
Posted: 25 Mar 2013, 09:36
The only scientifically proven way to lose weight is maintaining a calorie deficit, you either did this or did not, now you have found a way to do it but it will work no matter how you did it if done correctly I.e. a deficit was maintained.

For years the people with the lowest body fat... body builders...... have traditionally done so on the 5 or 6 small meals a day method


Whether there are any other benefits to fasting has yet to be proven

Personally I sort of intermittently fast, I.e I don't tend to eat until about 1 pm but it's more because I don't feel so hungry in the am and prefer my calories at night
mrspackrat

Joined: Aug 10
Posts: 490

      quote  
Posted: 25 Mar 2013, 10:18
Really, then I should have been skinny 2 year ago. From Dec 11 to Dec 12 I lost 2 lbs running a calorie deficit. What I did I truly think changed my body's hormones/regulated my metabolism. I still eat the same amount of calories/run the same sort of deficit, etc. the difference is just eat them in 3 meals and not eat/snack/eat/snack/eat/snack.
this damn tracker below hasn't been right in months! My current weight is 137!
Sherillynn

Joined: Mar 11
Posts: 267

      quote  
Posted: 25 Mar 2013, 10:25
I've been reading a bit about the Paleo diet and incorporating some of the principles into my own healthy eating plan. It talks about intermittent fasting and only eating when we are hungry and not necessarily on a schedule as so many of us have been programmed to do. That's been helping me out.

Science may have some things on the money but they've missed the mark a LOT and if it works for you, I say BRAVO! Thanks for sharing your successes. If it helps another person, its so worth it!
** Goal 1- 20 pounds- 4/30/2013
** Goal 2- get back down to wearing size 16 jeans
** Goal 3- normal blood pressure
** Goal 4- well below "One" Derland
** Goal 5- 600 miles this year in 200 mile increments
** Goal 6- Decreased back and knee pain

Blessings,
Sherill


Nimm

Joined: Dec 10
Posts: 669

      quote  
Posted: 25 Mar 2013, 10:37
Whenever energy intake is rigorously controlled - e.g., in properly-designed metabolic ward studies - and energy expenditure is accurately measured, a calorie deficit is both necessary and sufficient to lose mass. Studies have even been performed on subjects who swear up, down and sideways, that they are unable to lose mass through energy restriction - and the unanimous results are that the subjects were simply mistaken about being in an energy deficit. This doesn't mean they were delusional or lying; it simply means that establishing and maintaining an energy deficit is easier said than done. This is where strategies such as meal timing start playing a role.

Despite the epidemiological correlation that the source article is discussing, controlled experiments looking at meal timing have found essentially no direct effect on energy balance and body mass.
Indirect effects, through mood/satiety/hunger levels are another matter. See, e.g.,: Effects of meal frequency on metabolic profiles and substrate partitioning in lean healthy males. ("The higher rise and subsequently fall of insulin in the LFr diet did not lead to a higher fat oxidation as hypothesized. The LFr diet decreased glucose levels throughout the day (AUC) indicating glycemic improvements. RMR and appetite control increased in the LFr diet, which can be relevant for body weight control on the long term".) Meal timing can therefore be important, but if you consume the same number of calories, changing the pattern or timing will not make a significant difference to your size.

mrspackrat

Joined: Aug 10
Posts: 490

      quote  
Posted: 25 Mar 2013, 10:44
Thanks. Another post in the forum was about not sharing our weightloss with family friends and most said they didn't because of harsh criticism. I think this should be a forum for us to share our successes without the negativity. As long as it's healthy, that's what this forum is for to help one another.

The fasting is just one part but I truly think with the eat/snack/eat/snack/eat/snack regime I was on was screwing my body up. There are hormones that go to work after you eat that help regulate body fat. If you eat, you interrupt that cycle. Also, I was probably eating when I wasn't hungry just becasuse I was trying to get a "snack" in between meals. Again, because I kept a calorie deficit each day, I thought it was not a problem. I think eating and waiting until you are hungry to eat again is key. For me that's 4-5 hours between meals. And I'm not sure I would use body builders as an example of people of good health. One of my best friends was in the sport and the supplements and crap those guys take in order to achieve their oddly sculpted bodies--no thanks!
this damn tracker below hasn't been right in months! My current weight is 137!



Forum Search
Advanced forum search



Latest Posts

Anybody know how many calories are in these...?
Okay so recently ive been trying to count all my calories. im having trouble with foods that are bought from corner stores such as 7-11. I just bought those mini boston creme donuts. you get 3 for a d ...
by SOSilence on 20 Apr 14 11:27 PM
Older Yet Feeling I can finally lose the weight no longer how long it takes!
Hello Momjjj. Welcome. Lots of support to be found here.
by ClassicRocker on 20 Apr 14 10:28 PM
So You Want To Be A Loser
I desperately want to keep the motivation now and for the rest of my life. Not like a job, but just second nature. Comfortable with this body...my body and the way I feed and care for it.
by LuC2 on 20 Apr 14 08:41 PM
Have Times Changed for Better or Worse?
Oh, it definitely changes with the times. Lillian Russell would probably be considered a fatty today and her 'sloth' might make it hard to find work! (Sad but true). And me with my Rubenesque ...
by LuC2 on 20 Apr 14 08:04 PM
Fell of the wagon
one bad meal wont make you fat anymore than one good meal wont make you thin...just get back up on the wagon
by eastwitch on 20 Apr 14 03:28 PM