Eating After 6pm, Jimmy Carr lost 3 stone this way! Really?

ronan45

Did any of you see Jimmy Carr last night on Graham Norton. Well I was surprised to hear him say his massive weight loss (3 stone) was to be attributed to his new eating method. A big lunch and never eating after 6pm. He was serious!
Hmmm could he have discovered the greatest dieting trick of all time?
Now I know there is merit in not eating near bed time but 3 stone!
Correct me if Im wrong but this has to be bull crap. He says he eats as much as he ever did.
Shenanigans!

Oh_Noes

I had to youtube that when I read your post because I was amazed that Jimmy Carr managed to find 3 stone to lose!

He looks terrible, he actually looks like he's ill. I don't know what's going on in his head or maybe he had a health issue. Bizzare.

Khannie

ronan45 wrote: »

He says he eats as much as he ever did.
Shenanigans!

+1 on shenanigans. He may feel like he eats as much as he ever did, but I'd bet money it's pants.

apkbarry

it sounds like a slimming world diet.... except you can eat after 6

MaybeI

I don't eat after 5.30 and lost six stone, so I know myself it can be done and is excellent.

I didn't see the interview.

Not eating after 6.00 is probably the best thing you can do to lose weight, in my experience anyway. I tell people who want to lose weight to do it, they never do.

gonedrinking

Considering most peoples lifestyles these days of working to around 5.30 then coming home and sitting on the sofa for the rest of the day then going to bed, it makes sense not to eat any more after dinner. Our body doesn't need any more energy than we will have already taken in by that stage and so any more food consumed will just be stored as fat. I don't eat after 7pm myself, it is tough getting used to at first but it does work.

rocky

Limiting calories results in weight loss? Sign me up!

gonedrinking

Its not about limiting calories, its about condensing your calorie intake into the time period for which you need energy. I eat the same amount as before but have lost weight.

rocky

gonedrinking wrote: »

Its not about limiting calories, its about condensing your calorie intake into the time period for which you need energy. I eat the same amount as before but have lost weight.

Sure, who cares about the laws of thermodynamics anymore.

So are you eating all the snacks you were having after 6pm? All of them? Really?

gonedrinking

Its not about the law of thermodynamics. We still have a huge amount to learn about metabolism. I'm saying I eat all the food I usually eat by 7pm and as a result I have more energy during the time that I need the energy. But everyone is different, what works for me mightn't work for you. There is no exact science to it, we all just have to adjust our diet and exercise regime until we get the results we want. Its that simple.

The earliest I get home is at 6 :pac:
I eat dinner at 7 and then study/run/etc

I would be skeptical of the "I eat as much as ever" unless absolutely all food intake was recorded before and after

rocky

gonedrinking wrote: »

Its not about the law of thermodynamics. We still have a huge amount to learn about metabolism. I'm saying I eat all the food I usually eat by 7pm and as a result I have more energy during the time that I need the energy. But everyone is different, what works for me mightn't work for you. There is no exact science to it, we all just have to adjust our diet and exercise regime until we get the results we want. Its that simple.

Yes it is.
Yes you have.
You said initially you lost weight eating the same amount of food, not that you have more energy. If you're only basing this assessment on what you 'think' you 'remember', it's not very valid. Heck, it's not too valid even if you noted the food you were eating before and after the change. There are studies that show that meal pattern does not matter, only total calories and macro composition is important when losing/gaining/maintaining weight. See http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70692193&postcount=43

While I don't disagree that not eating after X pm has worked for you, it's the cause of it working you're not getting right: limiting calories. You would have had the same results by not eating breakfast and keeping calories the same.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Earliest I go to sleep is 1am. Not eat for 7 hours?? GTFOutta here!

Amtmann

I frequently eat large meals at 11pm and would be asleep by 1am. Has no bearing on weight loss or weight gain.

All that matters is whether you eat under or over your TDEE. Everything else is irrelevant.

The bulk of the calories consumed by most people everyday (or night) are spent on functions that occur whether you are awake or asleep - such as skin cell regeneration, respiration, body heat generation, circulation, etc. Not everything you eat has to be burned off by moving actively hither and thither. People generally aren't aware of this, imo.

buyer95

Tremelo wrote: »

I frequently eat large meals at 11pm and would be asleep by 1am. Has no bearing on weight loss or weight gain.

All that matters is whether you eat under or over your TDEE. Everything else is irrelevant.

The bulk of the calories consumed by most people everyday (or night) are spent on functions that occur whether you are awake or asleep - such as skin cell regeneration, respiration, body heat generation, circulation, etc. Not everything you eat has to be burned off by moving actively hither and thither. People generally aren't aware of this, imo.

Thanks, very informative(I feel stupid for not knowing...)

poconnor16

I think some people associate eating a large dinner late at night with feeling bloated in the morning. So they mistake that empty feeling after hours of no food as 'weight loss' because they cut the food out at a certain hour. Its just the result of a 12 hour fast i.e. less food..

This whole no food after 6 thing started a few years back, I think Oprah was the culprit.

Due to work etc, my dinner is usually at 9 each night. My weight loss has been attributed to what I was eating and how much - not at what time.

BlueIsland

To simplify this and end this absolute crap. The only factor that matters for weight loss is: the amount of calories you use per day versus the amount you consume. Now I am not talking bout being healthy and fit when source of calories become vital. The time you consume the calories is a bloody myth which is not even worth debating.

billyhead

BlueIsland wrote: »

To simplify this and end this absolute crap. The only factor that matters for weight loss is: the amount of calories you use per day versus the amount you consume. Now I am not talking bout being healthy and fit when source of calories become vital. The time you consume the calories is a bloody myth which is not even worth debating.

Totally agree. This belief that if you stop eating carbs late in the evening will result in weight loss is a complete fad.

Hanley

BlueIsland wrote: »

To simplify this and end this absolute crap. The only factor that matters for weight loss is: the amount of calories you use per day versus the amount you consume. Now I am not talking bout being healthy and fit when source of calories become vital. The time you consume the calories is a bloody myth which is not even worth debating.

I still dispute this.

I'm pretty much 100% certain that if I ate 2,700kcals a day in Mars bars, and 2,700kcals a day in chicken fillets and peanut butter, I'd end up looking totally different after 2 months.

BlueIsland

I was weary enough with the way I phrased that Hanley! Just tried to make it fairly simple equation of calories in vs calories out. I always think say of a guy who goes on a "liquid diet" i.e drinking the head of himself. Eats probably a bag of chips or something in a day, smokes a load of cigarettes and 10 pints. he wont put on weight. He will be fierce unhealthy cos of his sources of calories but at end of day 2500 calories IS 2500 calories!

Hunchback

there are approximately 400 cals in a pint of lager though?

Kimia

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

there are approximately 400 cals in a pint of lager though?

I have my doubts on this.

Pixie Girl

Just saw the graham norton show repeat... Jesus he really does look awful!!!

Hunchback

Kimia wrote: »

I have my doubts on this.

you're right, my bad. happy to be wrong about this

edwinkane

ronan45 wrote: »

Did any of you see Jimmy Carr last night on Graham Norton. Well I was surprised to hear him say his massive weight loss (3 stone) was to be attributed to his new eating method. A big lunch and never eating after 6pm. He was serious!
Hmmm could he have discovered the greatest dieting trick of all time?
!

Actually no. If you eat more calories than you need, you store the unused calories as fat.

There is no magic diet or time or anything.

Cool Mo D

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

there are approximately 400 cals in a pint of lager though?

Seeing as a pint of guinness is 170 kcal, I doubt a pint of lager is 400.

metamorphosis

A pint of lager is about 2-220kcals, nowhere near 400!!!

El_Duderino 09

While I don't disagree that not eating after X pm has worked for you, it's the cause of it working you're not getting right: limiting calories. You would have had the same results by not eating breakfast and keeping calories the same.[/QUOTE]

I have lost about 3-4 stone of fat in about the last 2 years and in my experience the most consistant weight loss comes when i am in a period of not eating after dinner, usually not after 7.

Are you sure about that bit in bold? it strikes me that with breakfast eaten you have calories in the food that can be used more easily than burning fat which happens more slowly. on the other hand when you are asleep with an empty stomach you have to burn fat to pump blood and stay warm etc, but your body is asleep for most of it so it can happen nice and slowly.

I have never done a food diary but i imagine i eat the same amount as before up until dinner. Thinking about it, the kind of food i used to eat at night was crap anyway, crisps and junk.

come 10 or 12 i am pretty hungry most nights but considering i am usually relaxing at that time its not a hunger i feel i have to satisfy. has anyone ever noticed the type of food ads on tv late at night? Pure sh1t.

dRNk SAnTA

BlueIsland wrote: »

To simplify this and end this absolute crap. The only factor that matters for weight loss is: the amount of calories you use per day versus the amount you consume. Now I am not talking bout being healthy and fit when source of calories become vital. The time you consume the calories is a bloody myth which is not even worth debating.

No I don't agree with this black and white picture at all, and there are many nutritionists who now question this facile logic. It's about what you eat as well as how much you eat. As someone else said, human metabolism is much more complex than a simple in and out diagram.

I don't know whether the eating after 6pm thing works, but I'd say people who practice it probably do end up eating less, and I reckon it's healthier if you don't go to bed with a stomach full of food.

Transform

people can do all sorts of things to convince themselves to cut out a meal or two or cut out whole food groups or even just cut back on calories.

I think we should just decalorize and use the hottiebodyhumpilates program and the jimmy K diet!!

Boom!!

Hanley

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

I reckon it's healthier if you don't go to bed with a stomach full of food.

Why?

edwinkane

Hanley wrote: »

Why?

Well, thats a good question. Everyone has their own pet theories which they just "know" are true, and everyone nowadays seems obsessed with "health" believing that some foods are "good" and some others are "bad". Then you add fashion into the mix, and hey presto!, a whole industry grows up offering to sell you the latest crank fads. Remember the "Nutron Diet"? Or the hundreds of other diets which were fashionable for a time.

Its all designed to lighted to load in your wallet, and it is true that, in the capitalist world, a fool and his money are easily parted.

Blatter

Hanley wrote: »

I still dispute this.

I'm pretty much 100% certain that if I ate 2,700kcals a day in Mars bars, and 2,700kcals a day in chicken fillets and peanut butter, I'd end up looking totally different after 2 months.

http://uk.health.lifestyle.yahoo.net/eat-candy-lose-weight.htm

Not according to this guy!

Dr Haub, who teaches human nutrition at Kansas State University, lost 27 pounds in two months on a diet of chocolate bars, chips, biscuits, pizza, doughnuts and sugary cereals. He occasionally ate some low-calorie vegetables.

Despite his diet of sugary, salty and fatty processed food, his health indicators actually improved. His LDL-cholesterol, which is linked to a greater risk of heart disease, fell 20 per cent, while his 'good' HDL-cholesterol rose by 20 per cent. Dr Haub's body fat also fell from 33.4 to 24.9 per cent.

The results certainly surprised me.

(Not saying I'd recommend this diet, as it's obviously not sustainable)

edwinkane

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

http://uk.health.lifestyle.yahoo.net/eat-candy-lose-weight.htm

Not according to this guy!



The results certainly surprised me.

(Not saying I'd recommend this diet, as it's obviously not sustainable)

Why is it obviously not sustainable? Are you implying that it's sustainable to lose weight for 2 months, but not for 6 months or 4 months? That sounds illogical.

Blatter

edwinkane wrote: »

Why is it obviously not sustainable? Are you implying that it's sustainable to lose weight for 2 months, but not for 6 months or 4 months? That sounds illogical.

No, the length of time he lost the weight is irrelevant as to why I think it's unsustainable.

If you eat like crap like that you will more than likely experience hunger pangs and you will feel like you have to restrict yourself alot as the food is calorie dense but does not have a feel full effect.

In other words, you'd feel like crap.

edwinkane

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

No, the length of time he lost the weight is irrelevant as to why I think it's unsustainable.

If you eat like crap like that you will more than likely experience hunger pangs and you will feel like you have to restrict yourself alot as the food is calorie dense but does not have a feel full effect.

In other words, you'd feel like crap.

Would I? Are you arguing that feeling "crap" is equivalent to unsustainable?

Surely you'd feel no more "crap" after 6 months than you would after 2 months.

There is a widely held belief that we can only eat certain foods and should avoid other foods. If you've ever read anything by those kept in prisoner of war camps, for example Colditz, and they seem to have survived, some for years, on a very restricted diet lacking in nutrition. I think it was Alex Reid, who was in Colditz, who wrote about that and concluded that the body could adapt to almost any food and survive perfectly well.

We seem to now be afraid to eat almost anything as we fear its going to make us fat, or give us cancer, and so many of us have become unnecessarily neurotic about food.

Blatter

edwinkane wrote: »

Would I? Are you arguing that feeling "crap" is equivalent to unsustainable?

Surely you'd feel no more "crap" after 6 months than you would after 2 months.

I never mentioned anything about feeling more crap and hungry the longer you did it, my point was the longer you feel crap and hungry, the less likely you are to keep it up, hence ''unsustainable''.

edwinkane wrote: »

There is a widely held belief that we can only eat certain foods and should avoid other foods. If you've ever read anything by those kept in prisoner of war camps, for example Colditz, and they seem to have survived, some for years, on a very restricted diet lacking in nutrition. I think it was Alex Reid, who was in Colditz, who wrote about that and concluded that the body could adapt to almost any food and survive perfectly well.

At what cost is quality of life here?

edwinkane wrote: »

We seem to now be afraid to eat almost anything as we fear its going to make us fat, or give us cancer, and so many of us have become unnecessarily neurotic about food.

Hardly surprising seeing as the number of obesity related illnesses has been rapidly increasing over the last number of years.

howtomake

At my leanest I often ate twice after 6pm, one being my biggest meal of the day. I'm a snack/meal every 3 hours kind of gal. Then again I also workout in the evenings.

Anyway how can you trust anything a comedian says?
Does anyone have a link to the clip, can't seem to find it.

edwinkane

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

I never mentioned anything about feeling more crap and hungry the longer you did it, my point was the longer you feel crap and hungry, the less likely you are to keep it up, hence ''unsustainable''.




At what cost is quality of life here?




Hardly surprising seeing as the number of obesity related illnesses has been rapidly increasing over the last number of years.

Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate junk food as I think it's usually pretty disgusting and the alternatives are more delicious. I think adults who, for example, drink those carbonated sugary drinks so beloved by children, are suspect. The drinks are disgusting, and how an adult can enjoy a beverage which is sweetened to such a degree, suggests they have never developed their taste buds.

But facts are facts and calories are calories, and we need to ingest calories to survive.

Does it not occur to you as ironic that the more we are afraid to eat for fear of getting fat or getting cancer etc etc, the more we seem to be getting fatter and fatter?