Skipping breakfast?

UCD GroupThink

You know the way when were we younger we would have heard, that going without a breakfast is very dangerous, and that it can actually make you gain weight.

Is that just something that's said to make anorexic kids eat. I think I heard Dr Phil say it to a fat girl who was desperately trying to lose weight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6KClPkotxM&t=447s

Thank you

MagicIRL

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-guide

I (try) to follow this which means my first meal of the day is usually lunch at 12/1pm.

UCD GroupThink

MagicIRL wrote: »

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-guide

I (try) to follow this which means my first meal of the day is usually lunch at 12/1pm.

Yeah I heard about that recently. But what Dr Phil said made me wonder is it best to fast before bed, than in the morning.

Technically I fast for 9 hours at the moment, so I wouldn't be aiming for 16 hours! I think I might aim for 12 hrs!

UCD GroupThink

Berties_Horse wrote: »

Brilliant deduction there Watson.

Did you not hear it too?

UCD GroupThink

MagicIRL wrote: »

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-guide

I (try) to follow this which means my first meal of the day is usually lunch at 12/1pm.

Right now I didn't eat since 11:30 last night. So is it okay if your stomach rumbles a bit?

jamesbere

Breakfast is the most important **** of the day

Odelay

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

You know the way when were we younger we would have heard, that going without a breakfast is very dangerous, and that it can actually make you gain weight.

Is that just something that's said to make anorexic kids eat. I think I heard Dr Phil say it to a fat girl who was desperately trying to lose weight.

Lol dr Phil. Is he even a real doctor?
Do real doctors watch the show?

Boom_Bap

Skipping and eating gets messy, especially with cereal.

Panic Stations

I've skipped breakfast for year. Can safely say this is not true. In fact I'd say it's the opposite. It probably helps you burn fat.

UCD GroupThink

Panic Stations wrote: »

I've skipped breakfast for year. Can safely say this is not true. In fact I'd say it's the opposite. It probably helps you burn fat.

But does your stomach rumble in the morn?

Graces7

Panic Stations wrote: »

I've skipped breakfast for year. Can safely say this is not true. In fact I'd say it's the opposite. It probably helps you burn fat.

That advice is wise in that if you skip breakfast you are then going to get hungry midmorning and eat junk. Eating a breakfast stops that.

Fasting also is dodgy; the body sees what is happening and slows down .

MagicIRL

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

But does your stomach rumble in the morn?

Of course it does. But you get used to it. And then your body adapts to it. Drink cold water/coffee and it'll suppress your hunger.

UCD GroupThink

MagicIRL wrote: »

Of course it does. But you get used to it. And then your body adapts to it. Drink cold water/coffee and it'll suppress your hunger.

I've recently heard that because coffee has to be processed by the liver, that it turns your whole system on again. So if you're fasting you should only be on water.

Bob Harris

Skipping breakfast will definitely help you lose weight. Skipping burns loadsa calories. That combined with not eating and the weight will fall off of you.

Not sure historically Breakfast was all that much of a thing if something I learned a few months ago is true. Apologies for inaccuracies below - this is from memory:

Caroline Yeldham - a food historian which is a job I never knew existed until recently - points out that for example only soldiers in active campaign and the more intense manual labourers really partook of breakfast in Ancient Rome.

Mostly they would aim for a large meal around 3-4PM. The Romans that did eat a morning meal - called Jetaculum - bread cheese nuts and wine seemed to be the general meal of choice. Lots of drink charioting to work in those days I wonder.

Then in the middle ages not having a morning meal saw a rise in popularity. A noon meal became common then and morning meals were even considered a bit gluttonous if the writings of priest Thomas Aquinas are to be believed. Bread and beer in the morning was - similar to Rome - more for people who had a physically intense day ahead of them. This also had the effect of making breakfast look like something only poor people did - and hence was somewhat looked down on.

Interesting that in that time the noon meal - which was for many the first of the day therefore - was actually called "dinner" the etymology of which comes from the French word for breakfast which is "disnar". So basically lunch was breakfast and it was called dinner

The "most important meal of the day" narrative seems to have come in around the early 18th century. And some time later the man who sent us down the road of what would ultimately end in breakfast cereals and the like - was a man who also enjoyed electro shocking the genitals of children or applying acid to them, and removing the clitoris on females. Just sayin'

UCD GroupThink

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ok. Do you want a medal?

How uncalled for. Try not to butt in on others conversing. Why don't you make that response to every other line of advice in this thread?

Now go bugger off please.

Bob Harris

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

How uncalled for. Try not to butt in on others conversing. Why don't you make that response to every other line of advice in this thread?

Now go bugger off please.

Skipping breakfast makes you cranky.

topper75

Part of a high metabolism is eating small amounts regularly. Ask any pigmy shrew or mouse and they'll tell you.
Fasting will slow your metabolism. As will long periods sitting. Avoid both if you want to burn fat.

valoren

Break the fast.

You haven't eaten for about 10 hours or so, you can break it or extend it to lunch time by way of intermittent fasting. I guess the theory goes that by fasting intermittently you give your digestive system an extended break from digesting another meal as after all, your body is covered with fat (i.e. energy) anyway so it's not like skipping breakfast every so often will starve you.

Whatever meal you decide to eat will be your break fast meal. The whole most important meal of the day concept was possibly peddled by (shock horror) cereal makers.

BrokenArrows

As with all diets it totally depends on the person.

For like 10 years I never had breakfast. I just preferred to sleep before work. Lunch would be my first meal. I'm fairly trim and don't gain weight easily.

Then I met my wife and she can't do without breakfast so I started having breakfast. It didn't make the slightest difference to my weight.

Other people eat a chocolate bar and they gain the mass of a small star.

Boom_Bap

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

How uncalled for. Try not to butt in on others conversing. Why don't you make that response to every other line of advice in this thread?

Now go bugger off please.

UCD GroupThink

topper75 wrote: »

Part of a high metabolism is eating small amounts regularly. Ask any pigmy shrew or mouse and they'll tell you.
Fasting will slow your metabolism. As will long periods sitting. Avoid both if you want to burn fat.

This confuses me then!!

I did hear Dr Mark Hyman talk about the benefits of spacing out your meals. But then again he also said not to eat 3 hours before bed.

Keano

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

This confuses me then!!

I did hear Dr Mark Hyman talk about the benefits of spacing out your meals. But then again he also said not to eat 3 hours before bed.

I had to Google this Dr Hyman and oh he is one of these heal your body through food guys! Also he reckons people drinking diet drinks still get fat because the diet drink counts, not it bloody doesn't. It's the Big Mac the had with it!

seamus

There's all sorts of bull**** science about when and how to eat and spacing stuff out, most of it is "nutritionists" throwing out vaguely weight-related words like "metabolism" and "fat-burning" and making it sound like there is rock solid proveable science behind it.

Studies have shown that there is a correlation between skipping breakfast, and obesity. Especially with children. This doesn't mean that skipping breakfast makes you fat, but the data shows massive overlaps between the group of people who skip breakfast, and the group of people who are overweight.

If you start eating breakfast you will not magically get skinny. If you start skipping breakfast you will not magically get fat.

Most likely it is both the chicken and the egg. People who are fat will have bad eating habits which involve just eating whatever, whenever, rather than eating meals at a set time. But also people who have bad eating habits and do not sit down for set meals, most likely tend to snack more, and tend to eat more when they do sit down. And so become fat.

There is nothing wrong with skipping breakfast so long as you are paying some level of attention to how much and what you're eating. Also, if breakfast is a cup of coffee and a triple-chocolate muffin from Starbucks on your way to work, then you're better off skipping it.

BrokenArrows

Fat people or those likely to have trouble maintaining weight also forget half the food they eat.

Used to live with a girl who had issues with weight and she would be complaining about putting on weight even though she ate barely anything. This would be after a day of me witnessing her eat a **** tone of food by constantly snacking and eating a salad the size of Mt. Everest

silverharp

I only eat breakfast at the weekend and often don’t eat lunch either. It’s a very natural way of eating, its clear the food industry has an incentive to push eating all the time so they can sell more snacks and junk food breakfast cereals and the rest. Obviously the food you eat when you do has to be right too.

UCD GroupThink

silverharp wrote: »

its clear the food industry has an incentive to push eating all the time so they can sell more snacks and junk food breakfast cereals

You reckon they're in bed with Dr Phil?

UCD GroupThink

topper75 wrote: »

Part of a high metabolism is eating small amounts regularly. Ask any pigmy shrew or mouse and they'll tell you.
Fasting will slow your metabolism. As will long periods sitting. Avoid both if you want to burn fat.

I think the intermittent fasters would argue that when you go beyond 12 hours of eating, that your metabolic enzymes will begin to shut down anyway!

So therefore it's better (for your 16 waking hours), to be eating in a 12 of those hours, than 15/16 hours.

wakka12

I think its a very annoying myth that was put out there

Skipping breakfast is indirectly linked with weight gain because some people skip it and get super hungry and binge eat later on and that causes weight gain

If you skip breakfast, and dont binge eat later, and eat normally throughout the day then of course skipping breakfast will not make you gain weight it will make you lose weight

In my personal opinion everyone should eat a health and hearty breakfast, I love having a big filling breakfast and look forward to it every morning

ebbsy

I like chicken.

DS86DS

These health nutters are truly a wonder of the modern world. They want to be healthy by skipping the most important meal of the day. Breakfast is the meal after 8 hours of sleep, and for one to fall back on for the working hours of the morning.

It must be a miserable experience to work through the morning hours on a starving stomach.

silverharp

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

You reckon they're in bed with Dr Phil?

Doctors don't actually learn that much about nutrition, a lot of US doctors literally spend about 1 day on it in their studies. What certainly happens is that "research" money is funnelled to high profile doctors if they stay on script.
Think of it this way before agriculture it wouldn't have been safe for humans to leave cooked food especially where they slept due to other predators. The human evolution experience is bound to have been more intermittent feasting, we are not a grazing species, well we are now but I don't want to look like "the people of Walmart"

Dial Hard

I never eat breakfast. I'm just not generally hungry til about 1.30 ish. If I am hungry, obviously I'll eat it but my natural eating pattern is not to want it.

The "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" is a mantra that's pushed incredibly hard but for me, forcing myself to eat a meal I don't want is just plain weird.

What you eat over a given 24-hour period is far, far more important than when you eat it. If you don't want breakfast, don't eat it. Just don't then compensate with half a packet of biscuits and a bag of crisps at 11am. It's not rocket science.

silverharp

DS86DS wrote: »

These health nutters are truly a wonder of the modern world. They want to be healthy by skipping the most important meal of the day. Breakfast is the meal after 8 hours of sleep, and for one to fall back on for the working hours of the morning.

It must be a miserable experience to work through the morning hours on a starving stomach.

go back to the 1940's or 50's and the average person would have fasted for 12 hours. You ate dinner at the table and that was it, this only changed recently where the average amount of meals in the US has gone from 3 to 6 for example.
Why would it be “miserable”? liberating surely, what’s miserable is an increasing number of people who get the shakes if they havnt eaten for 2 hours. If you go around small villages in the Med, breakfast is normally a 5 fags and a couple of coffees , they obviously didn’t grow up on Kellog’s advertising.

DS86DS

silverharp wrote: »

go back to the 1940's or 50's and the average person would have fasted for 12 hours. You ate dinner at the table and that was it, this only changed recently where the average amount of meals in the US has gone from 3 to 6 for example.
Why would it be “miserable”? liberating surely, what’s miserable is an increasing number of people who get the shakes if they havnt eaten for 2 hours. If you go around small villages in the Med, breakfast is normally a 5 fags and a couple of coffees , they obviously didn’t grow up on Kellog’s advertising.

It's nothing to do with Kelloggs. People have been eating morning porridge for hundreds of years. A Medieval farm labourer is not going to undertake intensive and physical pre- mechanisation farming with a meal beforehand

Franz Von Peppercorn

DS86DS wrote: »

These health nutters are truly a wonder of the modern world. They want to be healthy by skipping the most important meal of the day. Breakfast is the meal after 8 hours of sleep, and for one to fall back on for the working hours of the morning.

It must be a miserable experience to work through the morning hours on a starving stomach.

If the body is going into a starvation mode every day and then gets fed everyday later on, perhaps a few hours before sleep when metabolism is low, it’s probably not that healthy. Depends on the person though.

Franz Von Peppercorn

silverharp wrote: »

go back to the 1940's or 50's and the average person would have fasted for 12 hours. You ate dinner at the table and that was it, this only changed recently where the average amount of meals in the US has gone from 3 to 6 for example.
Why would it be “miserable”? liberating surely, what’s miserable is an increasing number of people who get the shakes if they havnt eaten for 2 hours. If you go around small villages in the Med, breakfast is normally a 5 fags and a couple of coffees , they obviously didn’t grow up on Kellog’s advertising.

That’s not true at all. As the poster above said people didn’t do manual labour on empty stomachs. Couldn’t.

silverharp

DS86DS wrote: »

It's nothing to do with Kelloggs. People have been eating morning porridge for hundreds of years. A Medieval farm labourer is not going to undertake intensive and physical pre- mechanisation farming with a meal beforehand

so what manual labour do you do now? I said people fasted for 12 hours ~8pm to ~8am. As for now if you commute and have a sedentary job you only need to eat twice a day and there is no particular need for breakfast and you don't need to eat a Snickers unless you are over eating all the time anyway and your blood sugar is all over the place.

UCD GroupThink

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

If the body is going into a starvation mode every day and then gets fed everyday later on, perhaps a few hours before sleep when metabolism is low, it’s probably not that healthy. Depends on the person though.

Well you're only fasting for about 4 hours while you're awake. Your metabolism will stay active later in the night if you choose to start it later (the fast) in the morning.

Franz Von Peppercorn

silverharp wrote: »

so what manual labour do you do now? I said people fasted for 12 hours ~8pm to ~8am. As for now if you commute and have a sedentary job you only need to eat twice a day and there is no particular need for breakfast and you don't need to eat a Snickers unless you are over eating all the time anyway and your blood sugar is all over the place.

You actually said that people fasted until dinner.

Yes lives are more sedentary. Solution is to be less sedentary. Morning exercise is best if possible but probably get a breakfast in if you are cycling to work.

completedit

intermittent fasting is such a joke. just eat breakfast

Dial Hard

completedit wrote:

just eat breakfast

If you want it.

Why do people find it so hard to understand that some people just aren't hungry in the mornings???

silverharp

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You actually said that people fasted until dinner.

Yes lives are more sedentary. Solution is to be less sedentary. Morning exercise is best if possible but probably get a breakfast in if you are cycling to work.

I didn't , I said they didn't eat from the time they finished dinner to the next morning "12 hours"

cherryghost

I wasnt eating breakfast for many years, and I think for a time it took its toll on my health. I was mentally and physically exhausted after some years at a more demanding job, which culminated in some collapses and one that caused injury, finally forcing myself to consider a decent breakfast before work. That was a couple of years ago and I've had no problems with my health since then.

I would advise never skipping breakfast, especially if you're in a demanding and draining job.

Franz Von Peppercorn

silverharp wrote: »

I didn't , I said they didn't eat from the time they finished dinner to the next morning "12 hours"

12 hours from 8 to 8 is what people who eat breakfast now do. It’s about 16 hours for breakfast fasters. So I’m not sure of the relevance. Also people in the 50s generally ate dinner (the main meal) midday.

However none of that is too relevant to today either way as calorie intake was higher in the 50s but calories out were also higher.

Intermittent fasting etc etc is just a means to facilitate a calorie deficit.
Total calories in compared to total calories required will dictate weight gain or loss ........... when you eat the calories makes little to no difference.

Sleepy

Breakfast is something I indulge in at the weekend - usually something fried. During the week, it's a can of Diet Coke and a cigarette.

topper75

silverharp wrote: »

go back to the 1940's or 50's and the average person would have fasted for 12 hours. You ate dinner at the table and that was it, this only changed recently where the average amount of meals in the US has gone from 3 to 6 for example.
Why would it be “miserable”? liberating surely, what’s miserable is an increasing number of people who get the shakes if they havnt eaten for 2 hours. If you go around small villages in the Med, breakfast is normally a 5 fags and a couple of coffees , they obviously didn’t grow up on Kellog’s advertising.

Let's be honest here - do Kelloggs make even one good breakfast in their range of products?

I eat a good breakfast every morning, and never eat Kelloggs.

OneArt

Dial Hard wrote: »

I never eat breakfast. I'm just not generally hungry til about 1.30 ish. If I am hungry, obviously I'll eat it but my natural eating pattern is not to want it.

The "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" is a mantra that's pushed incredibly hard but for me, forcing myself to eat a meal I don't want is just plain weird.

What you eat over a given 24-hour period is far, far more important than when you eat it. If you don't want breakfast, don't eat it. Just don't then compensate with half a packet of biscuits and a bag of crisps at 11am. It's not rocket science.

I really enjoy breakfast sometimes. Usually late in the morning and moreso when I've a day off, so I have the time to relax and enjoy it.


Obviously growing up I was made to eat "three square meals" a day. I'm a pretty tall person, but I can never eat as much as most people seem to in one go. Which was hell, because I had to eat all my dinner so I ended up feeling sick after most meals from forcing myself.


Pretty much stopped eating at set times when I was 23 (had been living away for a few years already, but somehow had it in my head that I HAVE to eat at certian times). Ended up just following my hunger, which usually means a bit lunch around 2/3 and then a late dinner, which occasionally grazing in between (usually random things like a bit of bread and cheese etc.). After switching to that, I felt SO MUCH better and mostly just eat when I'm hungry. Some days I eat once, other days I stuff myself.


So yeah... Completely agree. At least with me, the whole "breakfast / lunch / dinner" and "breakfast is the most important meal" just doesn't fly.

Sunflower 27

MagicIRL wrote: »

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-guide

I (try) to follow this which means my first meal of the day is usually lunch at 12/1pm.

I do that as well if I want to lose a few pounds. Definitely helps keep the weight off.

I usually have a boiled egg around 10am. Low calorie breakfast helps keep daily calorie intake down.

silverharp

topper75 wrote: »

Let's be honest here - do Kelloggs make even one good breakfast in their range of products?

I eat a good breakfast every morning, and never eat Kelloggs.

I believe Kelloggs cornflakes have a glycemic index higher than sugar, they should be subject to cigarette style packaging with pix of a diabetic foot or fatty liver, not heart health symbols :pac: