Time Restricted Eating

[dave303e]

It's on the internet. It must be true.

 

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki

[Rick Sanchez]

Can't say I agree with this, but I might be wrong. If you start eating earlier you at least have some "active" hours during the day to put a dent in the food you ate. Ie, you can walk around, ride your bike etc etc to burn that MickeyD's burger off just a bit. If you have that burger, fries and shake at 8pm and then get into bed, your body doesn't have anything to do with the food for the next 8 hours or so, and it will probably be stored (as fat)?

Nope. If total expenditure is more than total intake, YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT, regardless if you ate all your calories in the morning, spread throughout the day, or 5 minutes before getting into bed. 

 

Hell, you can lose weight by just eating chocolate, as long as your total expenditure is more than your intake. Same if you only eat organic, fat-free, chicken breasts for every meal, if your expenditure is less than intake, you will GAIN weight, regardless of how "healthy" your food is

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Nope. If total expenditure is more than total intake, YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT, regardless if you ate all your calories in the morning, spread throughout the day, or 5 minutes before getting into bed. 

 

Hell, you can lose weight by just eating chocolate, as long as your total expenditure is more than your intake and you're not one of those people who have an abnormal insulin response and gain weight. Same if you only eat organic, fat-free, chicken breasts for every meal, if your expenditure is less than intake, you will GAIN weight, regardless of how "healthy" your food is

Fixed, but mostly agreed. 

 

Some people are just strange. Like if I LOOK at a piece of cake, I gain weight regardless of how much I eat. 

[GrahamS2]

your body does the same thing with food regardless of when you eat it. It digests it, and prioritises certain nutrients over others when it comes to energy production. You still burn stuff off 24h a day. Exercise just increases the amount you burn. 

 

IOW - nutrient timing is largely a myth. The body just burns certain things faster than others (carbs will be "burnt" before protein, and alcohol before carbs)

 

Also - it's a lot easier to smash 3,000 kcal over the space of 16h than it is to fit it in in a single meal. Unless you're talking deep fried everything and so on and so forth. 

Exactly. Calories are calories, and the body doesn't discriminate. Really makes no difference if you only eat on the full moon, or when the tide is high, your body doesn't really care.

 

As was mentioned earlier: Consume less calories, burn more energy and you'll lose weight. Do it in whatever format works for you and is realistically maintainable. 

[Rick Sanchez]

Just to put it out there, I train hard, follow a calorie restricted diet and count every calorie I consume. BUT, I also eat pizza at least 3 times a week, and other fast-food like KFC etc. at least twice a week. 
I am 1.84m, 85kg and 9% BF. It's doable people, you just need to do it right and not be too restrictive, as many people tend to be.
It should be maintainable and become a lifestyle.

[TheJ]

Hell, you can lose weight by just eating chocolate, as long as your total expenditure is more than your intake. 

 

I know this.

 

You'll be up for other health problems though by getting your calories from food like that with no substance.

 

"Balance".

 

You know, talking about food and chocolates on my fasting day isn't helping, chaps.

[Chris_]

 

 

"Balance".

 

 

 

The world doesn't need more balanced average people.

 

If you believe in something, go all in. 

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

go all in. 

that's what she said

[Andrew Steer]

that's what she said

...but you were already 

 

Excuse the cheap shot 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Andrew Steer

[Pieter-za]

Exactly. Calories are calories, and the body doesn't discriminate. Really makes no difference if you only eat on the full moon, or when the tide is high, your body doesn't really care.

 

As was mentioned earlier: Consume less calories, burn more energy and you'll lose weight. Do it in whatever format works for you and is realistically maintainable. 

Not really   

[Squier]

your body does the same thing with food regardless of when you eat it. It digests it, and prioritises certain nutrients over others when it comes to energy production. You still burn stuff off 24h a day. Exercise just increases the amount you burn. 

 

IOW - nutrient timing is largely a myth. The body just burns certain things faster than others (carbs will be "burnt" before protein, and alcohol before carbs)

 

Also - it's a lot easier to smash 3,000 kcal over the space of 16h than it is to fit it in in a single meal. Unless you're talking deep fried everything and so on and so forth. 

 

So what you're saying is we need to drink more to raise our metabolism?

[Zatopek]

Not really   

That section describe how you can make it easier to consume less calories by eating the correct food.

 

He is talking about calories already consumed though.

 

You are both right.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

That section describe how you can make it easier to consume less calories by eating the correct food.

 

He is talking about calories already consumed though.

 

You are both right.

And nutrient timing. Body doesn't care if it's one set of 2,000kcal or 4 sets of 500kcal. It's an average of 2,000kcal per day either way.

[lechatnoir]

Exactly. Calories are calories, and the body doesn't discriminate. Really makes no difference if you only eat on the full moon, or when the tide is high, your body doesn't really care.

 

As was mentioned earlier: Consume less calories, burn more energy and you'll lose weight. Do it in whatever format works for you and is realistically maintainable. 

 

Not quite...eating 2000cal in fat will do very different things to eating 2000cal sugar... meaning that eating less and moving more is quite incorrect

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Not quite...eating 2000cal in fat will do very different things to eating 2000cal sugar... meaning that eating less and moving more is quite incorrect

Nah, it's correct given the right variables. 2 people with the same insulin response and production and diet will have different results if one eats 2,000kcal and doesn't exercise vs the other who eats 2,000kcal and does.

 

CICO is most important, then consistency, then nutrient type

 

IMO.

 

For those with sensitivities and / or strange responses, nutrient type matters more than those who don't have those things, but you still need to adhere to CICO and consistency.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Cptmayhem

[ZakAttak]

I have a new fad diet plan that has been scientifically proven to work.

 

It goes like such:

 

Calories consumed less Calories burned equals a Calorie surplus or a calorie deficit.

 

Need I explain the result of a daily Calorie surplus?

 

I think your math is a bit skewed, it does not take into account, body repair and excess offload...

 

So even if you consume more than you burn off during exercise, the excess will be used to repair and the over extra will be removed as a waste product... If you are active and healthy, then your body will only retain what it needs and rid of the excess irrespective...