Although religious in origin, I suspect that the idea of an overnight fast became a religious doctrine because of the clear health benefits. Just like many other food prohibitions in religion that have the net effect of improved public health and food safety.
Eating during the day when active raises or at least supports an active metabolism. Eating before going to sleep cause excess energy to be stored.
One can objectively cut through the diet fad, and general weightless noise by looking at the unequivocally consistent success of body builders and athletes in losing fat. This suggests that caloric deficit via increased activity is better then caloric deficit by reducing intake (generally athletes consume more calories then a typical diet, just not as many more as they burn when they are 'cutting').
The effects of the opposite behavior seem to confirm this. Sumo wrestlers build mass by eating a diet high in carbs and sleeping a lot. Mauritanian women traditionally drank camel milk and slept a lot to fatten up before marriage.
So eating the 'entire day' but stopping at least 2-4 hours before sleep seems likely to be at least moderately effective. I wonder if there's been a study... ;)
> One can objectively cut through the diet fad, and general weightless noise by looking at the unequivocally consistent success of body builders and athletes in losing fat. This suggests that caloric deficit via increased activity is better then caloric deficit by reducing intake (typically athletes consume more calories then a typical diet, just not as many more as they burn when they are 'cutting').
It's not consistent. You're only seeing the results on the people it works for.
When we study whether exercise helps people lose weight we tent to see that either it doesn't help, or that it's counter productive and people put on body fat.
People:
1) over estimate how many calories they burn during exercise
2) under estimate how many calories are in food
And then they eat a treat which they feel they've earned, putting them into caloric surplus.
You may say 'yes but we just need to tell them not to eat that treat and they'd be in calorific deficit', and while true it's obviously not going to work because "stop eating so much" has been the consistent message since the 1970s and it obviously doesn't work.
Obese people aren't obese because they sleep a lot or because they don't do any exercise. (I know obese people who do 5k in 25 minutes). Obese people are obese because they eat too much of the wrong food.
I think we're saying exactly the same thing, and I agree that people have the incorrect casual estimations of exercise calories vs food calorie density.
However...
"It's not consistent. You're only seeing the results on the people it works for."
I think this isn't correctly stated, and dangerously gives one the impression that athletes are born not made.
In fact, it is extraordinarily consistent. Outside of disease processes anyone who takes up training like an athlete will begin matching the physique of an athlete. People are athletes buy choice, not by physiological imperative, and this is proven out extensively by people who take up athletic behavior anywhere at any time in life.
As I pointed out with the Sumo example, I'm specifically including all behaviors of athletes not just the exercise portion. That was my point about the value of 'fasting' before going to sleep. Something most athletic diets recommend (also eating more and smaller meals even with the same total calories per day).
As you point out it is psychologically difficult to reduce calories with diet alone. This psychological effect becomes increasingly successful at causing us to consume excess calories the longer or larger a deficit we attempt to maintain. This nearly invariably results in a bounce back effect, and often resulting in a higher 'set weight'. The net effect of diets being a progressive increase in weight over time.
Athletes are consistently successful, dieters are consistently unsuccessful (with the exception of anorexia).
It makes sense that this is true when you start digging into it. Along with improved self image and mood a higher metabolism allows athletes to hold a better physique for longer even with excess calories, while a dieter will 'rebound' more quickly due to lowered metabolism, and the bodies tendency to store fat in response to famine. Further, other than protein sparing diets the diet only approach can lead to loss of muscle as the body consumes it for energy, so after any success with dieting taking in excess calories leads to muscle being replaced with fat.
Eating a bunch of Twinkies is bad, eating them right before going to sleep is worse.
> In fact, it is extraordinarily consistent. Outside of disease processes anyone who takes up training like an athlete will begin matching the physique of an athlete. People are athletes buy choice, not by physiological imperative, and this is proven out extensively by people who take up athletic behavior anywhere at any time in life.
They only become athletic if they keep doing it, and many people are for a variety of reasons unable to keep doing it, which is why "exercise to lose weight" is unhelpful advice and is no longer part of the public health message on obesity. It's still really important to get people to exercise. Just don't claim weight loss as one of the benefits.
Food/drink intake is probably like 90% of it, yeah. It's important to keep track of calories, absolutely avoid shit food and do the right kinds of workouts.
eating within a specific period of time long before you actually go to bed (become sedentary). I wake up anywhere between 7-10 am, immediately go top heavy with big breakfast -- you're going to be moving about the entire day. By dinner time (like 6 or 7), I'm only having a milkshake or something <200 calories. Go to bed around 1 or 2 am.
