 In my last chronobiology video, we learned that the exact same number of calories at breakfast are significantly less fattening than the same number of calories eaten at supper. But who eats just one meal a day? What about just shifting our daily distribution of calories earlier in the day? Israeli researchers randomized overweight and obese women into one of two isochloric groups, meaning each group was given the same number of total calories. One group was given a 700 calorie breakfast, a 500 calorie lunch, and a 200 calorie dinner. And the other group was given the opposite, 200 for breakfast, 500 for lunch, and 700 for dinner. Since they were all eating the same number of calories overall, the king prince popper group should have lost the same amount of weight as the popper prince king group, right? But no, the morning slanted group lost more than twice as much weight, in addition to slimming about an extra two inches off their waistlines. By the end of the 12-week study, the king prince popper group lost 11 more pounds, 19 pounds lost compared to 8, despite being the same number of calories. That's the power of chronobiology, the power of our circadian rhythms. 700, 500, 200 is 50% of calories at breakfast, 36% of calories at lunch, and only 14% of calories at supper. That's pretty skewed. What about 20% for supper instead? A 50%, 30%, 20% spread compared to 20, 30, 50. Again, the bigger breakfast group experienced dramatically increased weight loss, about 9 pounds different in just 8 weeks, with no significant differences in overall calorie intake or physical activity between the two groups. Instead of 80% plus of calories at breakfast and lunch, what about 70% compared to 55%? Overweight homemakers were randomized to eat 70% of their calories at breakfast, a morning snack, and lunch, leaving 30% for an afternoon snack and dinner, or more balanced 55% up through and including lunch. In both cases, only a minority of calories were eaten for dinner. I mean, would it matter if it was just 55% up through lunch or 70%? Yes, significantly more weight loss and slimming in the dietary pattern that was even more biased towards the morning. You know, stories about food nutrition are in the news on an almost daily basis, but information can sometimes be confusing, contradictory. Clear messages should be proposed in order to reach the greatest number of people, the researchers conclude. And one clear communication physicians could give is, if you want to lose weight, eat more in the morning than in the evening. Even just telling people to eat their main meal at lunch rather than dinner may help, despite comparable caloric intake. Participants in a weight loss program randomized to get advice to make their main meal lunch beat out those who instead were told to make their main meal dinner. The proverb, eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a pomper evidently has another variant. Eat breakfast yourself, share lunch with a friend, and give dinner away to your enemy. Wouldn't go that far, but there does appear to be metabolic benefit to front-loading the bulk of your calories earlier in the day. The evidence isn't completely consistent, though. A review of dietary pattern studies questioned the role that reducing evening intakes would facilitate weight loss, citing this study that showed the evening-weighted group did better than the heavy morning meal group. Perhaps that was because the morning meal group was given for breakfast, chocolate cookies, cake, ice cream, chocolate mousse, and donuts. So, chronobiology can be trumped by a junk food methodology. Overall, the what is still more important than the when. Chloric timing may be used to accelerate weight loss, but doesn't substitute for a healthy diet. When he said that there was a time for every purpose under heaven, Ecclesiastes probably wasn't talking about donuts.