Circadian Eating (12 hour window)

[saevel25]

I was listening to a Joe Rogan podcast interview with Dr. Rhonda Patrick. Those who want some fantastic information healthy eating then definitely listen to this episode. One thing that was suggested was eating related to the circadian time cycle. Basically, the circadian clock is your bodies internal clock for the day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_clock.

Studies have shown and are being done, that your metabolism starts to kick up as soon as you intake any food or drink that causes your body to metabolize it. From that point you need to eat all your food with in the next 12 hours, ideally with in the next 9 hours.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064803/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255155/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170106113820.htm

This type of eating cycle has been shown to have a great influence on metabolism and the bodies ability to properly process food. They found that it doesn't matter if you eat healthy food or not after the 12 hours, that food is being processed and stored as fat.

[dennyjones]

So, what I'm hearing...

If I eat breakfast at 7 am, I should eat all of my food for the day before 7 pm preferably by  4 pm?   

If this is the case, I'm good about 99% of the time. 

[billchao]

1 hour ago, dennyjones said:

So, what I'm hearing...

If I eat breakfast at 7 am, I should eat all of my food for the day before 7 pm preferably by  4 pm?   

If this is the case, I'm good about 99% of the time. 

Seems like it, but I didn't look at any of the links just yet.

I typically drink my first cup of coffee around 9 am and dinner is usually 6 pm. I'm good.

[colin007]

Hmm....first intake at 6:30, last intake prolly around 9 at night? I'm good too LOL!!!

[Denny Bang Bang]

Some also call this intermittent fasting.  I do this when I’m being careful with my food intake (which is way too often as I’m aging haha).  I only eat between 11am and 7pm when doing this

[jamo]

Isn't this basically just how most people eat?

[JCrane]

On 10/13/2017 at 5:17 AM, saevel25 said:

I was listening to a Joe Rogan podcast interview with Dr. Rhonda Patrick. Those who want some fantastic information healthy eating then definitely listen to this episode. One thing that was suggested was eating related to the circadian time cycle. Basically, the circadian clock is your bodies internal clock for the day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_clock.

Studies have shown and are being done, that your metabolism starts to kick up as soon as you intake any food or drink that causes your body to metabolize it. From that point you need to eat all your food with in the next 12 hours, ideally with in the next 9 hours.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064803/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255155/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170106113820.htm

This type of eating cycle has been shown to have a great influence on metabolism and the bodies ability to properly process food. They found that it doesn't matter if you eat healthy food or not after the 12 hours, that food is being processed and stored as fat.

This sounds like the same as Intermittent Fasting and it is amazing. I use an 8 hr window. Mine is noon to 8PM, They do not recommend  anything longer than that. I have been on it for about 3 months. It is based on the hunter gatherer principal. I can say with certainty about myself that the 3 meals a day is nothing but a program and not about feeding my body. I have no doubt that I was never fully digesting one meal before adding another. I never feel hungry in the morning and often do not eat until one  or so. I have more energy because the food is actually being converted to fuel which the real intent of food. The food tastes better and I am much more choosy about what I put in my body.. My weight is stable and does not bounce around like it used to. I also don't have all the sugar cravings I used to have and then of course there is a matter of regularity which  is important to us old folks. As I look out my window I see the rain being collected by the storm sewer. If it rains too hard the sewer backs up. 

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, jamo said:

Isn't this basically just how most people eat?

They studied this and found it to be not true. Just like most people think they eat less than they actually do. A lot of people will eat very late or snack very late into the evening or night. The thing is, it’s not when you eat solid foods. Let’s say you wake up at 6 am and have a cup of coffee. That activates your bodies metabolism for the 13 hour cycle. 

 

[Buckeyebowman]

I believe in the adage, "Eat when hungry, drink when thirsty, sleep when tired." It's amazing what a short nap can do for you now and then. I usually eat twice a day, unless I'll put something in my stomach to just "tide me over". Maybe I'm out doing more work than usual, and I need the calories.

[Alx]

On 10/13/2017 at 3:17 PM, saevel25 said:

I was listening to a Joe Rogan podcast interview with Dr. Rhonda Patrick. Those who want some fantastic information healthy eating then definitely listen to this episode. One thing that was suggested was eating related to the circadian time cycle. Basically, the circadian clock is your bodies internal clock for the day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_clock.

Studies have shown and are being done, that your metabolism starts to kick up as soon as you intake any food or drink that causes your body to metabolize it. From that point you need to eat all your food with in the next 12 hours, ideally with in the next 9 hours.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064803/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255155/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170106113820.htm

This type of eating cycle has been shown to have a great influence on metabolism and the bodies ability to properly process food. They found that it doesn't matter if you eat healthy food or not after the 12 hours, that food is being processed and stored as fat.

Ive read a lot of these studies and they all seem to conclude that the most important thing is to limit your food intake. Wether its through eating in a 12 hour window, limiting overeating to 2 days a week(5/2 diet) or portion control they all achieve the same thing. People eat less.

[klineka]

9 minutes ago, Alx said:

Ive read a lot of these studies and they all seem to conclude that the most important thing is to limit your food intake. Wether its through eating in a 12 hour window, limiting overeating to 2 days a week(5/2 diet) or portion control they all achieve the same thing. People eat less.

This. ^^^^

You can still gain weight by doing circadian eating or intermittent fasting if you consume more calories than you burn. Its not 100% cut and dry as that, but its close. The biggest thing that these "food intake windows" do for a normal person is limit that late night snack, which reduces the overall amount of calories consumed, sometimes as much as 700-1000 per day. Even by just taking out a 500 calorie snack every day, that is a 3500 calorie reduction over the course of a week, which is enough to lose over 1 lb of body fat (assuming you were eating at maintenance calories prior to eliminating the snack)

[saevel25]

14 minutes ago, Alx said:

Ive read a lot of these studies and they all seem to conclude that the most important thing is to limit your food intake. Wether its through eating in a 12 hour window, limiting overeating to 2 days a week(5/2 diet) or portion control they all achieve the same thing. People eat less.

They found in studies, that if you eat closely to your natural bed-time, it will be processed by your body as it is slowing down it's metabolism. This is bad because it means what ever you eat will be turned into fat more so then if you ate that earlier in the day. 

They found that healthy biomarkers increase when eating in a smaller time-window. Also, this is a pretty simple change people can make and gain some pretty good benefits.

Is caloric intake important, yea.

This time restrictive eating studies are showing benefits even if you restrict your caloric intake. It makes sense. If you eat a lot of food at a time when your body is not running at the highest metabolic rate then it will not be burning the maximum amount of calories.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

They found in studies, that if you eat closely to your natural bed-time, it will be processed by your body as it is slowing down it's metabolism. This is bad because it means what ever you eat will be turned into fat more so then if you ate that earlier in the day.

I think there are also studies that show that it doesn't matter when you eat, it all basically follows the same pathways.

People make this stuff too complicated.

Calories in vs. calories out. Manage that and the rest takes care of itself, by and large. (No, you can't just eat M&M's for 100% of your caloric intake and expect to be healthy. A dash of common sense is implied here.)

[Alx]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

They found in studies, that if you eat closely to your natural bed-time, it will be processed by your body as it is slowing down it's metabolism. This is bad because it means what ever you eat will be turned into fat more so then if you ate that earlier in the day.

Well... It takes atleast 6 hours for the food to metabolize and then it is stored into the bodies short term energy storages and then eventually it turns to fat if theres enough excess. The whole process takes way longer than 1 night. The whole thing pretty much resets the next day if you dont overeat. You can find singular studies saying pretty much anything.

The big picture is calories in calories in. The body wont store energy that isnt excess.

 

14 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

This time restrictive eating studies are showing benefits even if you restrict your caloric intake. It makes sense. If you eat a lot of food at a time when your body is not running at the highest metabolic rate then it will not be burning the maximum amount of calories.

But then again when you dont eat during that time the body uses the reserves. Again +-0.

[JCrane]

7 minutes ago, Alx said:

Well... It takes atleast 6 hours for the food to metabolize and then it is stored into the bodies short term energy storages and then eventually it turns to fat if theres enough excess. The whole process takes way longer than 1 night. The whole thing pretty much resets the next day if you dont overeat. You can find singular studies saying pretty much anything.

The big picture is calories in calories in. The body wont store energy that isnt excess.

 

But then again when you dont eat during that time the body uses the reserves. Again +-0.

I think the calorie thing is way overdone. Eating a smaller piece of chocolate cake may have the same calories as a large portion of sprouts, but pales in comparison to the nutrient density and energy conversion of the sprouts. As far as metabolizing we need to think more about what we are metabolizing.

[Alx]

15 hours ago, JCrane said:

I think the calorie thing is way overdone. Eating a smaller piece of chocolate cake may have the same calories as a large portion of sprouts, but pales in comparison to the nutrient density and energy conversion of the sprouts. As far as metabolizing we need to think more about what we are metabolizing.

It is and it isnt. For the most part Id say it isnt. At the end of the day it really is as simple as calories in and calories out BUT because that piece of cake is not particularly nutritious nor does it take very long to digest you tend to need to eat more cake to say full which tends to promote overeating. You pretty much have to decide to stay hungry for a while to compensate.

 

[saevel25]

5 hours ago, Alx said:

At the end of the day it really is as simple as calories in and calories out BUT because that piece of cake is not particularly nutritious nor does it take very long to digest you tend to need to eat more cake to say full which tends to promote overeating.

Not really. For losing weight yes, but for health maybe not. This is being found out more and more as studies are showing that carbs cause the body to produce bad health indicators and other health issues.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbs-against-cardio/

Quote

Nobody is advocating that people start gorging themselves on saturated fats, tempting as that may sound. Some monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, such as those found in fish and olive oil, can protect against heart disease. What is more, some high-fiber carbohydrates are unquestionably good for the body. But saturated fats may ultimately be neutral compared with processed carbs and sugars such as those found in cereals, breads, pasta and cookies.

If you are talking strictly weight loss, sure calorie deficit is a must. Weight maintenance doesn't mean you will be healthy.

My point was not to say, "If you eat with in this window you will not gain weight." That isn't true. If I eat 7500 calories at lunch, I will gain weight. That is a fact.

At least by now, a good amount of studies have shown that eating during a specific window has shown health benefits. The study of how the body reacts to what we eat is a relatively new science. A lot of progress has been made over the past two decades. It wasn't to long ago a doctor was telling me not to eat eggs because they were high in cholesterol. Yet eggs are really good for the cholesterol ratios. Its the same thing with saturated fats. They though, oh you get fat by eating fats. That is absurd logic.

Again, weight loss, portion control and calorie control is the primary driver. For maintaining good health indicators like correct cholesterol ratios, it isn't that simple.

 

[Alx]

24 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Not really. For losing weight yes, but for health maybe not. This is being found out more and more as studies are showing that carbs cause the body to produce bad health indicators and other health issues.

"Not really" followed by "maybe not" isnt very convincing . Anyways...

 

26 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

If you are talking strictly weight loss, sure calorie deficit is a must. Weight maintenance doesn't mean you will be healthy.

My point was not to say, "If you eat with in this window you will not gain weight." That isn't true. If I eat 7500 calories at lunch, I will gain weight. That is a fact.

At least by now, a good amount of studies have shown that eating during a specific window has shown health benefits. The study of how the body reacts to what we eat is a relatively new science. A lot of progress has been made over the past two decades. It wasn't to long ago a doctor was telling me not to eat eggs because they were high in cholesterol. Yet eggs are really good for the cholesterol ratios. Its the same thing with saturated fats. They though, oh you get fat by eating fats. That is absurd logic.

Again, weight loss, portion control and calorie control is the primary driver. For maintaining good health indicators like correct cholesterol ratios, it isn't that simple.

Youre right in that its more complex when it comes to health but overweight regardless of how you get it is bad which was the point I was trying to make. If youre a strict vegan weighing 300lb youre still dangerously heavy regardless of a "healthy" diet.

The new stuff seems to show that eating puts the body in a similar state as an infection would. I dont recall the specifics or terminology so dont quote me on that. The problem also nowadays is that everyone has a voice. Harsh but we have people promoting ridicilous nonsense all over the internet and people are lazy and tend to jump on a bandwagon without vetting the stuff they take in. That on top of the fact that studying these things on a big enough scale while still controlling the parameters is almost impossible. The most realiable data seems to come from places where the circumstances dictate and control them effectively.