Pretty junky article, because it doesn't define the goal, and therefore cannot give any recommendations either. Is the goal weight loss? Is the goal sleep quality? Is the goal how to maximize muscle protein synthesis (and add weight)?
When it comes to weight loss (and when the right muscle sparing tools are in place, also fat loss) total Calories in vs Calories out dominates. Don't get fooled, both sides of the equation are moving targets so it's been extremely difficult to be precise with it even in research. and water weight changes add further confusion.
When it comes to other hormonal aspects though? meal timing matters, obviously. An extreme example that makes it obvious -- If you eat ~1500 calories from fats/carbs in one sitting, you're likely gonna want a nap in short order as your blood sugar and insulin excreted rise. Does that mean you'll gain weight? Depends on your caloric needs.
Another example -- Eating even 3 hours before bed time can affect sleep. So, for sleep quality, it's best to eat earlier and then stop.
Another example -- taking in caffeine blocks the clearing of adenosine (the feel tired hormone). So if you drink caffeine in the first ~90minutes of waking then you dont actually clear the adenosine as well, and then when the caffeine hits it's half life (about 6 hours later) you'll feel tired again. Solution: let your body clear adenosine naturally before you consume caffeine.
I've never heard that caffeine prevents the clearing of adenosine receptors, a quick google didn't show anything with that side affect, do you have a particular citation? I'd definitely change coffee consumption habits if that is the case.
> Podcasts and Reddit is the same as no source at all.
Nah, c'mon, Most of us are unqualified to synthesize the dozens (if not hundreds) of sources it takes to be an expert in a field. Saying podcasts and reddit is the same as no source is like saying "People are no source" -- it entirely depends on the person.
> Andrew D. Huberman is an American neuroscientist and tenured associate professor in the department of neurobiology and psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine
That's a decently trustworthy source to trust for physiological information.
I mean, do you force your GP to provide sources and then go read them before you take their advice? Even if you do, it's not advisable for the majority of people.
Science or "science" around caffeine and food constantly bombards people with conflicting advice so I think that in this case it's fair to as more than "the guy said so on a podcast".
It's akin sayin "he's developer for 10 years, clearly nothing he said about software is wrong", which would get you laughed out of the room
The only source for this I have seen is Huberman saying it on podcast and also clips of him saying it on a podcast. But he did say it very authoritatively, so probably good enough.
You'll find a lot of references if you use a search engine to search for “caffeine and adenosine”. Here's the first result from my search: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20164566/
That cite doesn't support what the person said above. Here is their claim again:
> So if you drink caffeine in the first ~90minutes of waking then you dont actually clear the adenosine as well, and then when the caffeine hits it's half life (about 6 hours later) you'll feel tired again. Solution: let your body clear adenosine naturally before you consume caffeine.
That is a very specific claim. Your cite is about caffeine antagonizing adenosine receptors, but what the comment above is talking about is that caffeine slows your body from clearing adenosine in your blood which is very different.
I'd like to read a cite about the above quoted claim. Simplying googling "adenosine and caffeine" doesn't immediately support it, because again "antagonizing adenosine receptors" and "dont actually clear the adenosine as well" aren't remotely the same claim.
A bit informal but gets the gist across: eating outside of a 12 hour period (which begins at the first meal of the day) causes increased fat uptake, lowers insulin sensitivity, and your muscle starts to waste.
We have plenty of studies about this from body building. What you eat is orders of magnitude more important than when you eat. So while you can measure effects of timing and they are real, they are insignificant to most but the top competition level where 1% can make a difference.
Also the part that most people forget is that studying bodybuilders is most often also studying people who are on performance enhancing drugs ("steroids").
Researchers are aware of this, the studies are on regular people - a lot of them on people who never exercised before - just in a body building scenario. I wasn't very clear in my first post.
Time restricted feeding is a form of natural calorie restriction and it's the caloric restriction that causes the change in the body.
When equated for calories, protein, and fiber (and their "Calories Out" side effects) there is no statistically significant difference in diets from the twinkie diet[1], keto, low carb, low fat (though not too too low cause of hormones), one meal a day, 12/12 or 16/8 or 5d/2d intermittent fasting...
Two years ago I stopped eating sugar and flour. I also started eating on a schedule. Breakfast when I wake up between 6am and 730am, lunch around 1pm, dinner around 7pm. No I’m between snacks except some coffee, water, and chewing gum.
The results are that I’m in the best shape and health of my life.
I do breakfast at 8 am and dinner 5:30 pm, with 2 scheduled snacks. I am never hungry outside those boundaries. Consistency is key, you will secrete ghrelin (hunger hormone) at the scheduled times once they are habitual. I don't think snacks in themselves are detrimental, but snacking at random (and at night) seems to be.
A 12 hour fast is about my minimum, but I try to make it longer if I can. Seems to just depend on what I had for dinner the night before and bowel movements. I've tried eliminating snacking between meals, but settled on a beer and pistachio happy hour right after work.
One of the Keto-Doctors on youtube suggested that you can still eat gouda cheese if you feel seriously hungry, but should avoid sugar and carbs.
If I'm in the mood I drink kefir before bed, a certain kind seems to give me slapstick zombie dreams. If I have cream cheese with a certain gut-flora supplement, I might have space-dreams, where I fly space-crafts.
Same; if I get hungry before bed, I simply cannot sleep. I'm not sure about the specificity of Gouda, but I've always found cheese to be an excellent before-bed snack.
When I was younger I'd eat ice cream before bed. People were always dismayed, certain that it would give me nightmares. But that never happened. I just started gaining weight and no longer keep ice cream in the house.
Yeah ice cream is pretty bad because it's mostly sugar. A good ice-cream replacement FYI is: always put fruits in the freezer, then when frozen mix them with a bit of yogurt and it feels like an ice-cream (but with real fruit, no added sugars).
The authors take aim at your daily - or circadian - rhythm. This is difficult because the circadian cycle is superimposed on natures annual cycle.
If your goal is weight loss, you should concentrate on the time of year - not the time of day.
The 3 months between the fall equinox and the winter solstice (Oct - Dec) are the most difficult for dieters. Not because of the holidays, but because nature is preparing you to hibernate.
The best period to start dieting is between the winter solstice and the spring equinox (Jan - Mar). Each day tends to become easier to control your eating.
The period between the spring and fall equinoxes (Apr - Sep) are usually the easiest to maintain healthy eating habits.
Yes, there can be exceptions, but if you chart your daily weight, you will see the pattern.
The good news is that NOW (Jan) is the best time of the year to start a diet. Don't put it off because at this time of the year nature will conspire to assist you.
Anecdotal evidence of two people, my wife and I have in the last couple of years eaten our dinner around 5.30-6pm (we used to eat 7.30-8). We both work from home and often either eat with the kids or soon after them.
We don't really snack in the evening, maybe a small chocolate (as in a nice one from a chocolate box) at about 8pm.
We both sleep better and I have certainly lost a little weight. I would probably say I'm also less hungry in the morning too.
It's a routine that works really well for us, we are in the kitchen doing food for the kids anyway so why not eat with them or at least cook at the same time (they get big lunches at school). It's also opened up our evenings a little for more hobbies (and occasionally work).
The article seems to be doing that most common journalistic trope: misinterpreting data and selling you a false narrative. Most of it is about when you gain more weight, not what is more or less healthy (it's not like you're getting sick).
On the other hand, animals are normally the most insulin resistant during their typical sleeping hours.
Studies suggest the same phenomena occur in humans. It turns out that mealtime has a big effect on what
happens to your blood sugar levels. If you eat the same meal in the morning and at night, your blood
sugar will increase more in the evening than in the morning. Eating the same meal early, like for
breakfast, and at night can affect blood sugar levels differently.
So the time will change your blood sugar levels. If your blood sugar levels are fine, and the foods you eat don't skyrocket your blood sugar (low-GI for example), this isn't an issue. Eat low-GI foods at night to prevent insulin from increasing your blood sugar and stopping fat burning. (Some cardio before bed and before your meal might be helpful too, for a number of reasons)
Fat cells also appear the most insulin sensitive early in the day, with a peak at noon; they are about
50 percent more sensitive midday than they are at midnight. This means that your body is primed to eat
at certain times. In fact, eating at the “wrong” time can throw off everything. In a study of mice,
those given access to food at the “wrong” time, when they typically sleep, ate more when food first
became available—10 percent more total calories during a day—and gained more weight.
So watch your portions, and change the proportion of fat you eat so 50% of it from a night-time meal is eaten in the morning.
Research is starting to show the same effects in humans. One study on weight loss that compared the
times of eating among participants over a 20-week period revealed that those who ate lunch earlier lost
more weight than those who ate it later. A related study found that those who ate later burned less
energy than those who ate earlier.
So eat your least-caloric-intense meal at night, like a salad.
The whole article seems to send the wrong signals. What you eat actually seems more important than when you eat it, based on this article. IMHO, you should focus on your nutrition first, weight loss second. Keeping weight off requires habit-forming. If eating later at night is more convenient for you, do it! Just do it smart.
Notwithstanding that a specific hour doesn't mean much without knowing one's schedule, I believe avoiding food within approx 5 hours of bedtime is the guideline I usually come across in studies.
Intermittent fasters should take note rather than discounting a reproducible body of evidence as "propaganda". Its possible to do IF on an early schedule.
I'm considering inverting my IF schedule. I typically eat 1-2 meals today. Some days, I won't eat my first and only meal until 5:00 pm. Other days, I'll eat my first meal later in the afternoon, at about 2:00 pm and then again at about 6:00. Through IF, I've been able to shed about 20 pounds (160lb to 140lb) and sustainable keep it off.
However, I miss eating breakfast with my family, especially during winter, when a warm bowl of porridge...just hits the spot. So, I'm really considering during winter time frame, to switch up IF to an early schedule and experiment a bit.
I discovered that the relationship between when I eat and when I exercise is as important for fat loss as what I eat or that I exercise. Lift weights at 3pm, don't eat until 6, and there's a 3-hour window where my body is both 1) low on "ready energy" and 2) appetite suppressed, both due to the exercise, and tends to burn fat. Small amounts, to be sure, but enough to trend things downward. Whereas if I eat shortly after working out, my weight remains steady.
Thanks for sharing the article. Sounds like the article recommends against training while fasting, but that advice is geared towards endurance athletes:
"Our review of the literature suggests that there is little evidence to support the notion of endurance training and fasting-mediated increases in fat oxidation, and we recommend that endurance athletes should avoid high intensity training while fasting"
While I think timing is important (my sleep improves significantly when I stop eating several hours before sleeping, even better if the last meal is high fiber), suggesting that timing is equally important to food quality is obvious nonsense. Try eating just garbage but at all the "right" times and see how that works for you.
The article is paywalled. Even if (and I haven't read the article) the explanatory power of mean outcomes is equal between diet content and diet timing, it's absurd to think that the worst-case timing (as long as one isn't starving) is as bad as the worst-case content (again, as long as one isn't starving or eating objective poisons).
Having an average daily American intake all in one go right before bed or spread out equally among 5 minute intervals can't be as bad as a diet mostly consisting mostly of deep fat fried chocolate bars at average American meal timings.
> Research is starting to show the same effects in humans. One study on weight loss that compared the times of eating among participants over a 20-week period revealed that those who ate lunch earlier lost more weight than those who ate it later. A related study found that those who ate later burned less energy than those who ate earlier.
> A related study found that those who ate later burned less energy than those who ate earlier.
Big question on this one: Was it testing the same people, or was it observational / correlation-seeking? Because I can imagine people who burn less energy in general eat later because they're not hungry, rather than the other way around.
If the study doesn't take chronotype into consideration, what does "early" even mean? Humans have a natural variation in our circadian rhythms, and 90% or so lie within a 4h window. So you might eat before I wake up, or my breakfast might be your lunch.
Did that study have full control over the participant’s diets? If they’re allowed to self report a lunch time or eat freely then it could easily be down to differing snacking habits based on when they last ate.
When it comes to weight loss (and when the right muscle sparing tools are in place, also fat loss) total Calories in vs Calories out dominates. Don't get fooled, both sides of the equation are moving targets so it's been extremely difficult to be precise with it even in research. and water weight changes add further confusion.
When it comes to other hormonal aspects though? meal timing matters, obviously. An extreme example that makes it obvious -- If you eat ~1500 calories from fats/carbs in one sitting, you're likely gonna want a nap in short order as your blood sugar and insulin excreted rise. Does that mean you'll gain weight? Depends on your caloric needs.
Another example -- Eating even 3 hours before bed time can affect sleep. So, for sleep quality, it's best to eat earlier and then stop.
Another example -- taking in caffeine blocks the clearing of adenosine (the feel tired hormone). So if you drink caffeine in the first ~90minutes of waking then you dont actually clear the adenosine as well, and then when the caffeine hits it's half life (about 6 hours later) you'll feel tired again. Solution: let your body clear adenosine naturally before you consume caffeine.