Question: weight loss and Fruit consumption in day

[MikeG]

And I already said that drinking =/= eating.......

Yeah, yeah, because moving your jaw up and down a couple of times makes all the difference.

 

[Segnosaur]

I don't criticise your sceptical drive but there are so many of these nonsensical assertions knocking about that by the time you've disproved one, three others are waiting to take their place. They are all nonsense, seriously, even the ones allegedly based on studies*

Well, the person that was making the claim was someone who supposedly went to school for nutrition, so I'm fighting an uphill battle. (Not that studying a subject makes someone immune from woo, just that it does give a bit more credibility on a subject.)

There is only one rule: Eat sensibly and in moderation. And that's it.

I agree that that is key. However, some foods may have side effects (such as making a person feel full) that may make it easier to reduce calorie input. I though that the "no fruit before 4pm" might have a similar rational.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, yeah, because moving your jaw up and down a couple of times makes all the difference.

Nobody said that was the only difference, or even the most important one.

It isn't.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yeah, yeah, because moving your jaw up and down a couple of times makes all the difference.

No, because fruit juice is concentrated with a much higher calorific value than the fruit itself.

 

[blutoski]

Well, the person that was making the claim was someone who supposedly went to school for nutrition, so I'm fighting an uphill battle. (Not that studying a subject makes someone immune from woo, just that it does give a bit more credibility on a subject.)

You mentioned in the OP that you weren't sure if it was a nutritionist or a dietician. That's actually a big difference: a nutritionist could have 'gone to school' in some quack correspondence course, or could be a herbalist &c. Anybody can be a nutritionist, it's not a protected title.

Registered Dieticians need science degrees and board exams, and can lose their certification from the RD College. It's a protected title, and only the College of Dieticians can issue it.

I agree that that is key. However, some foods may have side effects (such as making a person feel full) that may make it easier to reduce calorie input. I though that the "no fruit before 4pm" might have a similar rational.

To my knowledge, there's no metabolic rationale.

If I was to guess, I'd suspect this is a semifasting diet. That class of diet creates calorie restriction by building eating windows. You can eat a lot of fruit over a day, but it's harder to overeat if you only have a few hours to do it.

It's unusual, though, because most of the semifasting diets have the opposite window: no eating X after N pm, or no eating at all after N pm. Where N is 2, 4, 5 &c.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that there can be valid reasons for not eating things after certain times of day - in order to prevent them still being in the stomach while asleep - but I can't think of one reason why you shouldn't eat something before a certain time of day.

I thought there might be some sort of rational like "sugar in fruit stimulates your hunger" or "the extra fiber in fruit causes the sugar to be absorbed better". You know, something that may have a veneer of science to it, even if in reality its bunk.

I also think the idea of that time being so rigid is a warning sign.

That didn't really concern me much. I wasn't involved in the original conversation... since this was advice given by one family member to another, they may have already been aware of my friend's work and meal schedule. Or, since most people work daytime (9pm-5pm, give or take an hour or 2), simply stating '4pm' would probably apply to the majority of the population. (Its probably easier for most people to remember '4pm' than it is to calculate 'X hours before supper'.)

 

[fagin]

I'm screwed then. I love a banana sliced on my cereal for breakfast. Or some berries.

 

[casebro]

But what about the old truism- An apple a day keeps the doctor away- IF you throw it hard enough.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Initial Googling actually turns up the inverse diet, all fruit before noon.

I've never heard of these particular suggestions, but like other "time" based ones there I know of no real basis, other than as a heuristic to (hopefully) control calories indirectly.

But this particular one sounds really dumb. I know of no one who is eating too much fruit. Apparently there are a lot of myths about fruit. This article had more and also found contradictory advice about timing:

Myth 4: The Best Time of Day to Eat Fruit Is the Afternoon
There is no real logic behind this idea, and there is also no evidence to support it.

It is claimed that your metabolism slows down in the afternoon and eating a food that's high in sugar, such as fruit, raises your blood sugar levels and "wakes up" your digestive system.

The truth is that any carb-containing food will temporarily increase your blood sugar while glucose is being absorbed, regardless of the time of day (9).

However, apart from providing your body with energy and other nutrients, this has no special benefit.

There is no need to "wake up" your digestive system, as it's always prepared to jump into action the moment that food touches your tongue, no matter the time of day.

And while eating a meal high in carbs might temporarily cause your body to use carbs as fuel, it doesn't change the overall rate of your metabolism (9).

The truth is that there's no harm in eating fruit in the morning. Fruit is healthy any time of the day.

BOTTOM LINE:
There is no evidence or logic behind the idea that fruit should preferably be eaten in the afternoon. Fruit is healthy no matter what time it is.

Myth 5: You Shouldn't Eat Fruit After 2:00 in the Afternoon
Interestingly, myth number five directly contradicts myth number 4, claiming that you should avoid fruit after 2 p.m.

It seems that this rule originated as part of the "17-Day Diet."

The theory is that eating fruit (or any carbs) after 2 p.m. raises your blood sugar, which your body does not have time to stabilize before bed, leading to weight gain.

However, there is no reason to fear that fruit will cause high blood sugar in the afternoon.

As mentioned previously, any carb-containing food will raise your blood sugar as the glucose is being absorbed. But there is no evidence that your blood sugar will be raised more after 2 p.m. than any other time of day (10).

And although your carb tolerance may fluctuate throughout the day, these changes are minor and do not change your overall metabolic rate (9, 10).

There's also no reason to fear that eating fruit in the afternoon will cause weight gain.

Your body does not simply switch from burning calories to storing them as fat when you go to sleep. Your metabolic rate does tend to decrease as you fall asleep, but you still burn plenty of calories to keep your body running (11, 12).

Many different factors determine whether calories are burned for energy or stored as fat, but avoiding fruit after a certain time of day isn't one of them.

There is also no evidence that avoiding fruit in the afternoon affects weight.

But there is overwhelming evidence that people who eat lots of fruits and vegetables throughout the day tend to weigh less and are less likely to gain weight (13, 14).

For example, one review of 17 studies found that the people who had the highest intakes of fruit had up to a 17% decrease in the risk of obesity (14).

When it comes to weight loss, eating plenty of fruits and vegetables is one of the best things you can do. It's a great way to get the nutrients you need, all while filling up on healthy, low-calorie foods.

Furthermore, if you're avoiding fruit in the afternoon and before bed, you're eliminating a healthy, whole-food option for a snack or dessert.

BOTTOM LINE:
Eliminating fruit after 2 p.m. has no benefits and doesn’t affect your weight. Eating fruit is a good idea at any time of the day.

So Is There a Best Time to Eat Fruit?
The truth is that any time of the day is a great time to eat fruit.

Linky.

Well, it's not quite a linear relationship between the two - the body is too complicated a mechanism for it to be that simple. Amount and type of exercise makes a difference, for example.

So calories burned . It's a pet peeve of mine, but CICO is the fundamental rule. Yes the body is complex, and there are multiple outputs and adaptive homeostatic processes, but that doesn't actually contradict CICO.

 

[Roboramma]

Yeah, yeah, because moving your jaw up and down a couple of times makes all the difference.

I would recommend that people who need to watch their weight be careful about drinking too much fruit juice.

I don't think they need to worry about eating too much fruit.

You make a meaningful point: that by drinking smoothies or fruit juice (or eating dried fruits) it's possible to take in a lot of calories. That's something that people who are concerned about their caloric intake should be aware of.

I don't think it's true that by eating raw fruits (not dried) people are likely to take in too many calories.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So calories burned . It's a pet peeve of mine, but CICO is the fundamental rule. Yes the body is complex, and there are multiple outputs and adaptive homeostatic processes, but that doesn't actually contradict CICO.

Not quite. I'll have to search for it later when I've got more time, but there was one study I read a while ago, for example, that tested the role of exercise and the type of exercise. They had 4 groups of people and put them all on identical calorie-controlled diets. The first group did no exercise, the second did 30 minutes cardio-vascular exercise a day, the third did 30 minutes strength training a day, and the fourth group did 15 minutes cardio-vascular and 15 minutes strength training a day. The first group lost the least weight (unsurprisingly), the second and third groups lost about the same as each other, and the fourth group lost more weight than any other group.

So, while the basic idea is right, it's slightly more complicated than just calories in vs. calories out.

 

[Roboramma]

So, while the basic idea is right, it's slightly more complicated than just calories in vs. calories out.

I think the issue there is that calories-in can be influenced by calories-out, for instance in so much as exercise can increase appetite, and calories-out can be influenced by calories-in (in various ways). So neither is independent of the other.

But the fact that calories in minus calories out = excess calories which will be stored as fat is still true, in spite of the fact that that calculation is often more complicated that it seems at first glance.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Fat storage requires an insulin trigger - food with low glycemic index doesn't do that.
Fruits, especially does with lots of sugar, will cause insulin release. Fats and proteins do not.

 

[Dr. Keith]

But what about the old truism- An apple a day keeps the doctor away- IF you throw it hard enough.

The old truism that if the primary use of your product is outlawed by the federal government and you need to find a gullible new market quick: think of the children!

 

[aleCcowaN]

I tend to go with what one doctor said - "nobody ever became fat by eating too much fruit".

Then, follow a diet of bananas, grapes, avocados and coconuts and you'll see...

 

[aleCcowaN]

One of the things they were told by their relative is not to eat fruit before 4pm in the afternoon. That kind of set off some skeptic alarm bells.

No reason for those bells.

If the diet is not one with and exact diet plan but general recommendations, this limitation serves the purpose of reducing the options in the menu for breakfast and lunch, and as self-deception to avoid taking the mid-afternoon tea earlier (if you way until 16:00, you can eat fruit!!).

Fruits are healthy and relatively low in calories, but vegetables are much healthier and they have less calories than fruit.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Not quite. I'll have to search for it later when I've got more time, but there was one study I read a while ago, for example, that tested the role of exercise and the type of exercise. They had 4 groups of people and put them all on identical calorie-controlled diets. The first group did no exercise, the second did 30 minutes cardio-vascular exercise a day, the third did 30 minutes strength training a day, and the fourth group did 15 minutes cardio-vascular and 15 minutes strength training a day. The first group lost the least weight (unsurprisingly), the second and third groups lost about the same as each other, and the fourth group lost more weight than any other group.

So, while the basic idea is right, it's slightly more complicated than just calories in vs. calories out.

Mm, sorry, still not seeing how that isn't just part of CICO. Maybe I'm being overly pedantic, but like I said, it is a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Fat storage requires an insulin trigger - food with low glycemic index doesn't do that.
Fruits, especially does with lots of sugar, will cause insulin release. Fats and proteins do not.

This insulin/glycemic index fad is a fad. Not that they aren't real things, but they aren't major, predictable, or useful factors in weight change or maintenance. Additionally, how the glycemic index works varies so much, based on an individual basis (even with the same individual) and on meal composition that it is literally impossible to make these kinds of rules.

Several logical consequences of this carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity were recently investigated in a pair of carefully controlled inpatient feeding studies whose results failed to support key model predictions. Therefore, important aspects of carbohydrate-insulin model have been experimentally falsified suggesting that the model is too simplistic.

Linky.

“Glycemic index values appear to be an unreliable indicator even under highly standardized conditions, and are unlikely to be useful in guiding food choices,” said lead study author Nirupa Matthan, Ph.D., scientist in the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at the USDA HNRCA. “If someone eats the same amount of the same food three times, their blood glucose response should be similar each time, but that was not observed in our study. A food that is low glycemic index for you one time you eat it could be high the next time, and it may have no impact on blood sugar for me.”

...

The team found that the average glycemic index value of white bread for the study population was 62, placing it in the category of a “medium” glycemic index food.

However, deviations averaged 15 points in either direction, effectively placing white bread in all three glycemic index categories. It would be considered a low glycemic index food (average values of 35 to 55) for 22 of the volunteers, intermediate glycemic index (57 to 67) for 23 volunteers, and high glycemic index (70 to 103) for 18 volunteers. Even within the same individual, glycemic index values could differ by more than 60 points between trials.

“Reports frequently tout the benefits of choosing foods with low glycemic index and glycemic load values. Our data suggest those values may not be reliable in terms of a daily intake. A better approach to choosing foods is to consume a diet primarily composed of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nonfat and low-fat dairy products, fish, legumes (beans), lean meats with preference to preparing food with liquid vegetable oils, and equally as important, to choose healthy foods and beverages you really enjoy,” said senior study author Alice H. Lichtenstein, D.Sc., senior scientist and director of the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at the USDA HNRCA. Lichtenstein is also the Gershoff Professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts.

Linky.

 

[Oystein]

Mm, sorry, still not seeing how that isn't just part of CICO. Maybe I'm being overly pedantic, but like I said, it is a pet peeve of mine.

The CICO function is steady, but not linear. 'K?

 

[Oystein]

Yeah, yeah, because moving your jaw up and down a couple of times makes all the difference.

Yes, it makes a lot of a difference, a crucial difference. Consider:

1. Many fruits contain pulp, fibers, structures that you eat that don't make it into the juice. E.g. the skins of orange wedges or grapes. These are good for digestion, and also help you feel fuller after a meal.

2. Potentially, there is a higher degree in diversity in fresh fruit. Most juices are orange, apple or grape, and most people keep only 1 or 2 in the fridge, but might buy 3 or 5 different kinds of fruit in a week. Variety is good.

3. It takes time to wash, peel, split, cut and then chew a fruit - much more than gulping down an equivalent amount of juice. So as has been pointed out! A glass of juice contains 3 or 4 oranges. Aftee you peeled and ate 3 or 4 oranges, you probably won't continue with another 3 or 4 - it's labour! -, while a second glass of juice is quickly poured and drunk.
Eating slowly is good!

The first two times in my adult life when I added a bit of fat to the belly coincided with me picking up a habit of frequently drinking caloric beverages. The first time, it was indeed juices. The second time it was beer.
It is generally recommended to drink water or nonsweetened tea to fulfill your H2O intake requirements. Doesn't mean you should not enjoy a glass of wine, latte macchiato or freshly squeezed orange juice from time to time, but don't make it a staple.
Oh, and it's possible to learn to really like healthy foods and drinks, taste is a learned thing to a large degree.