When you eat as important as what you eat

When you eat as important as what you eat


LA JOLLA, Calif., Nov. 30 (UPI) -- U.S. researchers say they've determined when people eat might be just as vital to their health as what they eat.

Scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies say experiments with mice revealed the daily waxing and waning of genes in the liver is mostly controlled by food intake and not by the body's circadian clock, as conventional wisdom had it.

"If feeding time determines the activity of a large number of genes completely independent of the circadian clock, when you eat and fast each day will have a huge impact on your metabolism," said Assistant Professor Satchidananda Panda, who led the research.

"Our study represents a seminal shift in how we think about circadian cycles," Panda added. "The circadian clock is no longer the sole driver of rhythms in gene function, instead the phase and amplitude of rhythmic gene function in the liver is determined by feeding and fasting periods -- the more defined they are, the more robust the oscillations become."

Panda said he has stopped eating between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. and says he feels great. "I even lost weight, although I eat whatever I want during the day," he said.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/11/30/When-you-eat-as-important-as-what-you-eat/UPI-33431259608003/

I find that when I eat nothing after 8 PM and when I go to bed at 11 PM I feel better and don't gain weight. I don't know what is magical about these numbers, but going to bed at 2am and sleeping the same number of hours doesn't do the same thing, nor does eating at 10PM because I am going to bed later.

if you eat within two hours of sleep you're going to manufacture and store more glucose as fat, more efficiently, regardless of when you go to bed. In the early mornings, your metabolism is still not as awake, so superlight "break-fast" is okay, brunch is probably healthier.

Also your intestinal metabolism is different during periods of rest than periods of activity.

Finally, eat anything you want, just not more than about 350 calories at a sitting, and fewer than 1800 calories a day with few exceptions, and you will stay lean and trim because there's no "extra" to convert for storage.

Actually finally finally: surprise your metabolism. 3 square meals a day will inevitably make you fat, if done seven days a week. Eating minimally seven days a week also slows your metabolism and can eventually make you gain weight more readily. Mix it up, more lean days than "full" days. Eat when you're active, don't eat when you're not. It really is about that simple.

That 2000 calories a day thing is for male youngun's and extremely active people (non-athletes). Everyone else, with the exception of athletes, you're eating too much.

Following these techniques and eating a low glycemic diet have helped me easily lose 30 pounds this year.

Chronic illness can use calories needed to maintain weight. For some, even 2,000 calories a day doesn't suffice. Nor does a 3 meal a day routine, as far as getting the most out of daily meals.

I'm glad to see more and more nutritional research on this, and encourage folks with weight issues - at either end of the spectrum - to consult a professional in the field.

I had a doctor and a nutritionist suggest to me, back in 1989, that I may be "burning" 500 calories a day or more on metabolic response to chronic disease. They encouraged me to go for ~ 3,000 calories a day, spread over 5 or 6 meals.

An exception to standard advice, of course, but one that has fit my situation. The take away for me was, not one size fits all.

conditions DO burn more calories. A low grade long term infection will absolutely burn you up without adequate nutrition, as can other liver metabolic issues, such as the onset of cirrhosis from chronic or acute liver damage.

You are correct though - there are other factors that come to bear if you've always been under or over a healthy size, and consulting a professional is the recommended route.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

I get so tired of people who demonize "overweight" people, when it is people's attitude against others of a certain body size that is the problem.

try again foo.

Starvation level? For whom? It's not about it working or not working, because it does. The point being it's not lean calories 7 days a week, if you read again. If you are a sedentary human, you don't need 2000 calories a day, and if you do eat that, and you are an unhealthy size and not capable of losing GIRTH, then clearly whatever you're doing is enough to keep you where you're at. As pointed out in other replies there are other factors of course, but for the most part it's a good solid rule of thumb.

It's not demonizing. Personally I don't care what size anyone is unless it invades my personal space in public places. That leaves a lot of room for variety.

Now I'll give you some REAL ammo to use against me: I am not sexually attracted to overweight people, in fact, sexually turned off. There you have it - size is not democratic, but if you need to demonize someone for their relatively narrow (so to speak) personal tastes in sexual partners, then so be it, no harm no foul. Neither do I view the world as fuckable, and everyone else, so my personal lack of pansexual attraction is not really a demon I wrestle with.

often at random times, instead of the circadian set standard of 3 big meals. I have trouble keeping weight on / gaining weight due to a chronic medical condition. That schedule, and its flexibility, seems to work for me.

Many of my meals consist of a half sandwich only, and maybe a piece of fruit. I eat when I'm hungry. Don't eat when I'm not hungry. I eat a lot of whole grain high fiber bread, fruit and nuts, too. I drink fruit juices daily, and water with all meals, at home or at restaurants. I don't drink any alcohol, coffee or tea. When I eat at restaurants, I almost always bring home food, anywhere from half to two thirds of the serving.

I focus more on WHAT I eat and how much I eat, not when I eat. I believe a key to good health is simply ingesting things that are good for your body and its digestive processes. The more healthy I eat, the less hungry I get, generally speaking. If I eat sweets, I find they tend to make me want sweets more. I don't avoid them, but eat them sparingly, as they have little use.

While the study may be interesting, a mere story about a study doesn't do it for me. I want to be able to read the study and examine its methodology before I place any confidence in it.

I believe it is important to keep the proper bowel bacteria, and will take Acidophilis to help add that bacteria if I think it's needed. Good bowel bacteria is important to the immune system's function as well as the proper bowel function.

And, LOL, I still use my mom's standard we learned when we were kids - include as many colors as you can in each meal. Turns out she was right.

Food is the new Sex.

--d!

I didn't get that memo, unless it's the one that cautions about wide-stance diaper sex with married republicon prostitutes of indeterminate gender in public bathrooms staffed by undercover cops...

My mom warned me about that.

as usual. strength science has known this for decades. timing of nutrient intake is as old as the hills. it has long been known that (for example), manipulation of leptin levels, growth hormone, insulin, etc. can all be affected by timing and nutrient choices.

also, not eating much (if any carbs) before you go to bed, helps with melatonin levels, hgh levels, and even T levels.

night.

up that snack after 8 PM. Thanks for the post.

I eat when I'm hungry and don't eat when I'm not. At 39 I weigh the same as I did in high school!

The only schedule I keep is my morning handful of almonds, IMO the best food on Earth.