No eating after 6pm rule

[milosz]

Look up intermittent fasting.

 

[BDC2823]

Originally Posted by milosz

Look up intermittent fasting.

I read this as...Look up intermittent fisting.

 

[longskate88]

Seems to me like if you eat in the morning, you have all day of physical activity to burn those calories off.

Eating at night, you don't have any physical activity while sleeping to burn them off.

Is this wrong?

 

[madaboutshirt]

Originally Posted by BDC2823

I read this as...Look up intermittent fisting.

I read this as...Look up intermittent farting.

 

[wahwho11]

he probably ate less.

 

[blackbowtie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moo

Calories in < calories out = lose weight

Doesn't matter when those calories are consumed.

I agree with this - what matters is the net calorie balance at the end of the day.

 

[Jr Mouse]

They talked about this on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast a little time ago. It's a myth. There have been studies on it and there is no measurable difference between people who stop eating before 6PM and those who don't. Calorie in and calorie out still holds true.

 

[Jr Mouse]

I want to add that the only benefit to this I would think is people tend to eat really unhealthy food when they eat super late. How many times have you been out at 2 a.m. with friends and craved a grilled chicken and salad? I think not.

 

[why]

Originally Posted by longskate88

Seems to me like if you eat in the morning, you have all day of physical activity to burn those calories off. Eating at night, you don't have any physical activity while sleeping to burn them off. Is this wrong?
It's completely correct if the human lifespan is a single day.

 

[munchausen]

Originally Posted by Exalt

Even though I do this, I have asked a dietitian about it who told me it is useless. As everyone says, it always comes down to calories in and calories out. For what it matters, in medical school I have never come across a textbook or study substantiating the effectiveness of this behavior!

I'm no doctor, but I think it comes down to the fact that if you stop eating at 6 you will end up getting less overall calories in your day.

 

[bigasahouse]

Originally Posted by JMRouse

They talked about this on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast a little time ago. It's a myth. There have been studies on it and there is no measurable difference between people who stop eating before 6PM and those who don't. Calorie in and calorie out still holds true.

This study from Sept/Oct showed that in mice, at least, the timing of eating did have an effect on their weight gain.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...o-weight-gain/

 

[why]

Originally Posted by bigasahouse

This study from Sept/Oct showed that in mice, at least, the timing of eating did have an effect on their weight gain.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...o-weight-gain/

Quite possibly the dumbest study to recently come out of the cesspool known as 'nutritional science'.

 

[Runningman411]

As somebody else posted, not eating after 6 probably reduces caloric intake by at least 500 calories for most folks. You could theoretically lose a pound per week doing just this. But, let's suppose you wake up at 6 a.m. Your body would have been without food for 12 hours. Wouldn't that eventually put your body in starvation mode and have it conserving whatever fat that you have?

I would agree that your body probably burns less calories while sleeping and it might not be the best idea to eat a full meal right before sleep. However, that's really not looking at the big picture, which is what you need to do to lose weight safely and keep it off.

Drop the fancy diets (i.e., high protein/no carb) and exercise some. Find out what works for you and don't pay too much attention to all of the bro' science on the internet.

For instance, I've always had a pretty high metabolism, even now that I'm 35. I started to get a little beer belly a couple of years ago (5'10", 170 lbs.). What worked for me was working out with weights initially to get my strength up (dropped about 5 lbs.) then p90x to cut a little bit more (another 5 lbs). I found myself getting too thin recently (right at 160 lbs. now) so I've cut out p90x (too much cardio) and have gone back to weights. My goal is to get back up to 170-175 lbs, which will likely mean some fat gain, and cut back down to 165-170. The primary change in my diet has been cutting out the empty calories in snacks, soft drinks, ***** foods. I still have a beer or two per week and will probably never cut that out completely. I eat much more fruit and vegetables and supplement with protein shakes. It worked for me.

 

[why]

Originally Posted by Runningman411

As somebody else posted, not eating after 6 probably reduces caloric intake by at least 500 calories for most folks. You could theoretically lose a pound per week doing just this. But, let's suppose you wake up at 6 a.m. Your body would have been without food for 12 hours. Wouldn't that eventually put your body in starvation mode and have it conserving whatever fat that you have?

Starvation has nothing to do with acute timeframes. It's a prolonged effect that occurs on any long-term reduction of calories. Think gulags, not Ramadan.

 

[LA Guy]

I should do this, except that I would get as hungry as ****, and be a miserable ****. It's also true that severe caloric intake results in longer life, but is it really worth it to live to be 100 and be hungry for 25 of those years?

Then again, I could probably lose about 10 lbs right now, and I'm already exercising about as much as my body will take (1-1.5 hours of cardio and conditioning every day, plus BJJ). I think that the trick is to never grow old. I used to be able to eat entire x-large pizzas, and not gain weight. And I was also never cold. Right now, I get cold, my hands have started to get crampy in the mornings, and so on...