A study suggests eating later in the day can directly impact our biological weight regulation in three key ways: through the number of calories that we burn; our hunger levels; and the way our bodies store fat.

With obesity now affecting hundreds of millions of people worldwide, this is a valuable insight into how the risk of becoming obese could be lowered in a relatively simple way – just by eating our meals a few hours earlier.

Earlier studies had already identified a link between the timing of meals and weight gain, but here the researchers wanted to look at that link more closely, as well as teasing out the biological reasons behind it.

“We wanted to test the mechanisms that may explain why late eating increases obesity risk,” said neuroscientist Frank Scheer, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston in 2022 when the study was published.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s weird how every time one of these studies comes out, there’s always a couple idiots screaming:

    A calorie is a calorie, no matter what!

    Not only doe they always remind me of the Horton Hears a Who, they never fucking learn anything.

    They were told something in 6th grade science class and latched on.

    Completely ignorant that there’d be a reason that children don’t get taught everything and usually only get broad specifics.

    • Fermion@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think people who obsess over calorie in calorie out reasoning drastically underestimate how variable the calorie out side can be with factors that aren’t exercise. Digestion isn’t 100% efficient, some calories are excreted. Small changes in body temperature have large changes in total energy consumption. Sleep quality, time awake, base heart rate and respiration rate, etc. all vary and have impacts on energy usage.

      Parroting CICO sounds scientific because it borrows credibility from thermodynamics, but people aren’t closed systems and applying laws of thermodynamics takes a lot of nuance in complex systems with a variety of inputs and outputs.

    • doublejay1999@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      What you are saying is equivalent to saying one kilometre is longer or shorter, depending on what time of day you walk it .

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Or maybe they’re saying that walking that kilometer can be easier or harder, depending on whether you’re going uphill or down, and whether there is snow upon the ground

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            No, it doesnt, but walking to school is more than just distance. The effort and time required, the likelihood of success, are affected by other things as well.

    • test113@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Are they wrong? I don’t understand. A calorie is a calorie; it doesn’t change energy composition. The calorie is just a measurement of energy content in a given product. If it’s 15, it’s 15. The energy content doesn’t change just because you eat it at 2 am. Your body processes the calories differently, not the calorie itself is diffrent. Am I misunderstanding the study?

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        You’re misunderstanding is you think the basal metobalism while asleep is the same as awake…

        I’m sure there’s lots of other things, but that’s what really giving you trouble right now.

        It’s an incredibly basic part of biology

        • Chobbes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Why does that matter? If I burn 2000 calories a day, why does it matter if I burn them at a lower rate while asleep? I’m still going to burn more later, no?

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Because you use less calories while you sleep, so excess calories are converted to fat…

            And it’s harder to burn calories of fat than use calories directly.

            So eating late in the day leads to new fat forming. If you ate the same earlier, it would be used immediately for fuel

            This is all incredibly basic stuff…

            • Chobbes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              This article mentions that one of the factors is that late at night you have fewer hormones suppressing appetite so you would potentially eat more. That makes sense as a reason you would gain weight. It does say that you burn fewer calories at that time too (which might mean you convert more of it to fat at that time, and if you don’t burn those excess calories later you’re going to be stuck with it…)

              But I don’t understand what you’re saying. It almost certainly takes more energy to convert calories to fat and then back to usable energy for your body to use… So what? If you eat 2000 calories, turn some of it into fat, and then burn 2000 additional calories later (in addition to the energy spent converting it to fat) you’re technically going to be burning more calories than you’re eating and you will lose weight.

              I’m sure there is an effect of when you eat and how that makes you store fat and how that can unintentionally cause you to consume more calories than you think… but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense to me thermodynamically.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                It almost certainly takes more energy to convert calories to fat and then back to usable energy for your body to use… So what?

                Because you think a human body wants to be “healthy” …

                It doesn’t, it wants to pack on all the fat it can to survive periods where food isn’t plentiful.

                We didn’t evolve for unlimited cheap calories, our bodies still act like we’re living in caves.

                Seriously, this is all very very basic stuff, you’ll learn a lot more reading about this then asking questions on social media and hoping you not only get the right answer, but explained in a way that makes sense.

                but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense to me thermodynamically

                BECAUSE THIS IS A HELL OF A LOT MORE COMPLICATED THAN CICO

                Something I’ve been unable to explain in a way you can understand.

                I doubt bolded all caps will help, but that’s literally my last hailmary.

                Go read some actual scientific texts if you want to learn more.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Your body loves fat.

                It wants as much as possible.

                To burn fat, you have to first use everything in your stomach, and then push through “the wall” where you keep exercising after your body says you need to quit.

                Then your body will start the process to burn and use fat for energy.

                So if you eat a lot at night and convert it to fat as you sleep. It’s going to be harder to work off that fat than if you had ate earlier in the day.

  • edric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Anecdotal, but I do intermittent fasting. I typically stop eating around 6pm, sometimes earlier. I lost 10lbs less than 3 months after I started without changing what I eat, just when I eat. Before that, I used to keep snacking until midnight before I went to bed.

    • Buildout@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Glad fasting is working for you! Are you confident that you are eating the same number of calories as you were before (even if you are eating the same kinds of foods)?

      Do you get all those snacks you used to eat until midnight in before 6:00pm, or do you just eat until full?

      • edric@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I honestly don’t count calories (which is why IF was perfect for me), but I’m likely eating less because I’m essentially skipping one meal a day (I do 16:8). When I started, I actually kept getting all those snacks in and ate a lot on my last meal because I was always worried about going hungry. I still lost weight anyway. Nowadays, I pace myself a little better (there’s only so much you can eat in 8 hours) and no longer need to stuff myself at 6pm.

  • doublejay1999@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Hmmm ……a study of 16 obese people in a controlled environment. I am not persuaded.

    Most of the scientific community understand this to be a myth :

    https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1273&=&context=pat_edu_proj&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fhl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253D0%25252C5%2526q%253Deating%252Blate%252Bat%252Bnight%252Bmyth%2526btnG%253D#search="eating late night myth"

    A calorie is a calorie, no matter what time it is consumed .

    • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      IDK, AFAIK that’s not exactly true. E.g. our gut bacteria play a big role in our health, including digestion. Gut bacteria are living organisms themselves and consume food we eat while it’s still in our stomachs. I’ve read that different kinds of foods, depending how easy it is for the bacteria to consume, may introduce more or less calories to us since the bacteria might digest some things before it gets past our stomach.

      From what I’ve read, this is already influenced by the state of food, like how much it’s been processed, but maybe it’s based on time too. If the bacteria already ate an hour or two ago then maybe they wouldn’t absorb as much when you have a snack later.

    • undeffeined@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I don’t think we can simply say for certain that a calorie is a calorie no matter when its consumed.

      Although evidence is still limited, there are indicators that eating earlier in the day leads to less weightgain.

      Source

      • subignition@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        My blatantly unscientific quick rationale: if you’re catching your prey late in the day, it was a tough hunt or food might be scarce, better hang on to those calories tightly.

        In a slightly more scientific angle, I wonder if it could have to do with changes in digestion processes when sleeping.

    • thesmokingman@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Your linked study handout doesn’t support your claim that “a calorie is a calorie, no matter what time it is consumed.” Care to provide something that illustrates most of the scientific community is behind this?

      I am especially curious about the study, called out in your handout, that showed night eating led to weight gain for a specific population. That would seem to suggest there’s more at play than just caloric value, no?