Skipping breakfast?

Boom_Bap

Everybody sleeps different.


Everybody eats different.


Everybody does different things.


Everybody fuels their body different.


Everybody is different.

Macy0161

Overall calorie deficit (or surplus) is the only thing that affects weight. Whether that's done with intermittent fasting or just grazing all day doesn't really matter, and the science is still that a calorie is a calorie.

Anything else doesn't have proper scientific support at this point in time. There's some anecdotal evidence around intermittent fasting that a daily 12-15 fast could potentially be beneficial, but the evidence is not there yet.

Deebles McBeebles

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Everybody sleeps different.


Everybody eats different.


Everybody does different things.


Everybody fuels their body different.


Everybody is different.

Is that a song from Bosco?

Supergurrier

Im on an 8/16 intermittent fast the last week or so and it's fine. I only eat between midday and 8pm.

I find it grand sofar. You will be abit hungry in the morning but also alot more alert. I work in furniture delivery which is heavy work at the best of times and it hasn't effected me in any way.

It's a two edged sword in that because you have a smaller window to eat you are more picky about what you are eating so consume less empty calories/****e basically.

The whole idea behind it is that your body is more efficient when it spends less time digesting and has more time for cellular regeneration and releases a form of natural anabolic steroid which stops your body consuming your muscle mass and instead unlocks a soft form of keitosis so that you instead burn your fat stores.

Just my experience for the doubters.

Supergurrier

Supergurrier wrote: »

Im on an 8/16 intermittent fast the last week or so and it's fine. I only eat between midday and 8pm. .......................

Just my experience for the doubters.

What's your reason for starting this ?
To be fair you mention doubters but you're only at it a week

silverharp

Macy0161 wrote: »

Overall calorie deficit (or surplus) is the only thing that affects weight. Whether that's done with intermittent fasting or just grazing all day doesn't really matter, and the science is still that a calorie is a calorie.

Anything else doesn't have proper scientific support at this point in time. There's some anecdotal evidence around intermittent fasting that a daily 12-15 fast could potentially be beneficial, but the evidence is not there yet.

there is a wider context though , there is a reasonably well known doctor in Canada Dr Jason Fung (a kidney specialist) who treats Type 2 diabetics with fasting protocols , he works off an Insulin model , ie when you eat your body releases insulin when you don’t eat your body stops releasing insulin, insulin promotes weight gain as any Type 1 diabetic will confirm.

He would also contend that one way American’s went wrong was increasing the number of meals they eat from 3 to 6 thus reducing their fasting window from an average of say 12 hours in the past to less than 8 today. The evidence is there in people having their diabetes reversed. At the end of the day you can only measure calories going in, you cant fully control what your body does with them. It is possible to reduce your calories and not lose weight because your body simply works off the new budget and slows you down.

Given the levels of obesity in an age when everyone knows about calories at least implies that people don’t have enough information in relation to where their calories come from or why certain foods incline one to overeat whereas others promote satiety or that eating 6 meals a day is probably not opimal

Supergurrier

Augeo wrote: »

What's your reason for starting this ?
To be fair you mention doubters but you're only at it a week

Lose weight while not losing muscle mass and also curiousity. Plus I heard it can help reduce bloating and water retention which it has and stabilise insulin levels as said above.

As to the week thing. Im only trying to be genuine on where im coming from and would be interested to hear from anyone else further along.

silverharp

Supergurrier wrote: »

Im on an 8/16 intermittent fast the last week or so and it's fine. I only eat between midday and 8pm.

I find it grand sofar. You will be abit hungry in the morning but also alot more alert. I work in furniture delivery which is heavy work at the best of times and it hasn't effected me in any way.

It's a two edged sword in that because you have a smaller window to eat you are more picky about what you are eating so consume less empty calories/****e basically.

The whole idea behind it is that your body is more efficient when it spends less time digesting and has more time for cellular regeneration and releases a form of natural anabolic steroid which stops your body consuming your muscle mass and instead unlocks a soft form of keitosis so that you instead burn your fat stores.

Just my experience for the doubters.

interesting, its something I do as well and it means I can eat a smaller range of food without getting bored , plus my mornings are more efficient, more sleep and less to think about when I get up, just get dressed and go. No mid morning pangs and no watching the clock for lunch once you get used to it.

Supergurrier

Supergurrier wrote: »

Lose weight while not losing muscle mass and also curiousity. Plus I heard it can help reduce bloating and water retention which it has and stabilise insulin levels as said above.

As to the week thing. Im only trying to be genuine on where im coming from and would be interested to hear from anyone else further along.

All good, best of luck with it.
If the calorie deficit isn't there intermittent fasting is a waste of time if weight loss is the primary goal.

When I hear someone who wants to lose weight throw in the muscle mass, water retention and reduce bloating speel though the eyes do roll a tad :pac:
I've been there myself so I'm not trying to wind you up.

Like, this week so far, what's your daily calorie deficit?

Canis Lupus

I stop eating at 8pm and don't eat until the following midday. I can comfortably lift heavy weights, run 10ks or do my 16km cycle to work before thinking about food.

Although I've been on holiday for the past two weeks and have been eating a fry every morning. Nyomnyom. So much fat to burn off when I get home....

Macy0161

silverharp wrote: »

there is a wider context though , there is a reasonably well known doctor in Canada Dr Jason Fung (a kidney specialist) who treats Type 2 diabetics with fasting protocols , he works off an Insulin model , ie when you eat your body releases insulin when you don’t eat your body stops releasing insulin, insulin promotes weight gain as any Type 1 diabetic will confirm.

He would also contend that one way American’s went wrong was increasing the number of meals they eat from 3 to 6 thus reducing their fasting window from an average of say 12 hours in the past to less than 8 today. The evidence is there in people having their diabetes reversed. At the end of the day you can only measure calories going in, you cant fully control what your body does with them. It is possible to reduce your calories and not lose weight because your body simply works off the new budget and slows you down.

Given the levels of obesity in an age when everyone knows about calories at least implies that people don’t have enough information in relation to where their calories come from or why certain foods incline one to overeat whereas others promote satiety or that eating 6 meals a day is probably not opimal

The evidence that's there is just anecdotal rather than proven at this stage. I'm not saying it doesn't have potential, it's just not at the proven stage. Some researchers i respect do fast (that's why I quoted the 12-15 hours earlier), but even though they practice it and suggest it as an approach, they accept it's only "potential benefits" at this stage.

Other things have also changed during the 3 meals to 5-6 meals too. Portions, processing, added fat/ salt/ sugar. It's a hypothesis rather than a fact.

Ultimately, whatever diet strategy that works for you, works for you.

Dalomanakora

Augeo wrote: »

Indeed, I lost 3 stone in 6 months recently.
I had breakfast every day but my weight loss was more or less a linear 1.5 lbs / week and I was eating 700/800 kcals per day below maintenance calories.

It's not when you eat that's key, it's what you eat and what you need to eat.

Congrats, that's an incredible amount to lose in only 6 months


As you said, it's what you eat, not when you eat.

I don't over eat just because I skip breakfast. If I added breakfast, I'd be adding calories I don't need.


If I ever find myself too far under my calorie goals, I'd try to incorporate breakfast but for now, I don't need it

silverharp

Macy0161 wrote: »

The evidence that's there is just anecdotal rather than proven at this stage. I'm not saying it doesn't have potential, it's just not at the proven stage. Some researchers i respect do fast (that's why I quoted the 12-15 hours earlier), but even though they practice it and suggest it as an approach, they accept it's only "potential benefits" at this stage.

Other things have also changed during the 3 meals to 5-6 meals too. Portions, processing, added fat/ salt/ sugar. It's a hypothesis rather than a fact.

Ultimately, whatever diet strategy that works for you, works for you.

Received wisdom tends to be fairly ropey or based on dodgy epidemiological studies where the question is the answer and depends more on who funded the study, proper clinical trials are expensive for these kind of studies because there isn't a buck to be made at the end of it, in fact with would cost the medical establishment money in lost business if there are no pills to sell ;-) . People could do a lot worse than to incorporate ideas about how their ancestors ate. Even watch some videos of New York from the early 20th Century and the people look totally different, no obesity , no gyms and living relatively sedentary city lives where lard was the cooking oil of choice and “low fat” wasn’t a thing.
There needs to be a switch back to less processed food and more orderly eating times. A country like France has done a lot better than the US because their culture was more robust though it will probably go like the US slowly

Dalomanakora

Dalomanakora wrote: »

Congrats, that's an incredible amount to lose in only 6 months


As you said, it's what you eat, not when you eat. ...........

Thank you and the same to you

I was lucky ish, I always trained and fell into the "you carry it well" category. Now I didn't carry it splendidly so I'm glad it's gone.

I'm 6 weeks now on maintenance cals and haven't gained or lost a pound so I'm almost more chuffed with that then with the actual weight loss.

ford2600

DS86DS wrote: »

If one is going to eat two meals a day, then it would make sense to opt for Breakfast and Dinner.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea of people fasting in times past. A person working on a farm or in a factory in the year 1860 would require thousands of calories a day, sometimes up to twice the amount of calories as what people need now given the physicality of the labour.

You might get away with skipping a bowl of porridge or some boiled eggs if you're sitting in a modern comfortable tractor.

In times past, a farmer or miner wouldn't have the energy to partake in intense physical labour without a substantial meal beforehand.

People tend to forget.....a modern 21st century tractor probably does what would have taken a 100 Medieval farm labourers to do.

I never eat breakfast.

I thinned my own forestry by hand; as physically demanding as any medieval labouring. I would have typically risen at 7 and worked, fasted until 4.

We are designed for feast and famine. Eating all your daily energy needs and more in one sitting is trivial. For me a 24 hr fast is trivial. The adaptations to make that possible for anyone are primarily psychological rather than physiological. People who have eaten breakfast everyday are utterly convinced of it's necessity and how impossible a long fast would be.

Burning body fat, in a fasted but not ketogenic state is a perfectly fine way to provide energy for sedentary activity and sub 70% VO2 max activity.

I've regularly cycled hilly 160km rides before my breakfast and continued on for up to 450km with as little as 1000cals consumed on bike. Cycled multi days events without issue with similar daily deficits.

My direct experiences of African tribes, where the vast majority of our genetics was forged, never left me with the understanding that breakfast or regular eating was necessary. In fact there was more than one smart comment about the weak white man's need to constantly top up.

Macy0161

silverharp wrote: »

Received wisdom tends to be fairly ropey or based on dodgy epidemiological studies where the question is the answer and depends more on who funded the study, proper clinical trials are expensive for these kind of studies because there isn't a buck to be made at the end of it, in fact with would cost the medical establishment money in lost business if there are no pills to sell ;-) .

Plenty of people making money selling books and diets based upon IF and Ketogenic diets, plus the academic prestige, if the benefits could be proven. I really don't buy(?) the conspiracy reason it hasn't been proven. Like most of the diets that have done the trials, it ultimately comes down to calorie deficit.

I don't believe I'm a complete naysayer - I've read up on potential benefits of IF, affects on metabolism, gut health, reduction of excess skin, and the evidence just isn't there yet to convince me. It's interesting and I'm not saying it won't ultimately be proven, but we're not there yet.

silverharp wrote: »

There needs to be a switch back to less processed food and more orderly eating times. A country like France has done a lot better than the US because their culture was more robust though it will probably go like the US slowly

Yes, but that is not the same as IF. Surely the traditional eating times were morning - middle of the day - evening (darkness). I'd guess that was governed by daylight rather than time, so any in built fast would depend on the time of year.

silverharp

ford2600 wrote: »

I never eat breakfast.

I thinned my own forestry by hand; as physically demanding as any medieval labouring. I would have typically risen at 7 and worked, fasted until 4.

We are designed for feast and famine. Eating all your daily energy needs and more in one sitting is trivial. For me a 24 hr fast is trivial. The adaptations to make that possible for anyone are primarily psychological rather than physiological. People who have eaten breakfast everyday are utterly convinced of it's necessity and how impossible a long fast would be.

Burning body fat, in a fasted but not ketogenic state is a perfectly fine way to provide energy for sedentary activity and sub 70% VO2 max activity.

I've regularly cycled hilly 160km rides before my breakfast and continued on for up to 450km with as little as 1000cals consumed on bike. Cycled multi days events without issue with similar daily deficits.

My direct experiences of African tribes, where the vast majority of our genetics was forged, never left me with the understanding that breakfast or regular eating was necessary. In fact there was more than one smart comment about the weak white man's need to constantly top up.

that's cool, I was reading the other day that an Ultra marathon runner who ran a 100 miles on a low carb diet. On the day he estimated he burned 20000 calories but only took in 3000 but his body was better fat adapted

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/bringing-home-bacon-happened-first-low-carb-ultra-marathon/

Dalomanakora

Augeo wrote: »

Thank you and the same to you

I was lucky ish, I always trained and fell into the "you carry it well" category. Now I didn't carry it splendidly so I'm glad it's gone.

I'm 6 weeks now on maintenance cals and haven't gained or lost a pound so I'm almost more chuffed with that then with the actual weight loss.

That's amazing! I'm still on lower cals because I have another 2st 3 to target, but my dad lost 4.5 stone and has held it off for two years. He says maintenance is even more difficult so seriously fair play for sticking at it

Keano

ford2600 wrote: »

I never eat breakfast.

I thinned my own forestry by hand; as physically demanding as any medieval labouring. I would have typically risen at 7 and worked, fasted until 4.

We are designed for feast and famine. Eating all your daily energy needs and more in one sitting is trivial. For me a 24 hr fast is trivial. The adaptations to make that possible for anyone are primarily psychological rather than physiological. People who have eaten breakfast everyday are utterly convinced of it's necessity and how impossible a long fast would be.

Burning body fat, in a fasted but not ketogenic state is a perfectly fine way to provide energy for sedentary activity and sub 70% VO2 max activity.

I've regularly cycled hilly 160km rides before my breakfast and continued on for up to 450km with as little as 1000cals consumed on bike. Cycled multi days events without issue with similar daily deficits.

My direct experiences of African tribes, where the vast majority of our genetics was forged, never left me with the understanding that breakfast or regular eating was necessary. In fact there was more than one smart comment about the weak white man's need to constantly top up.

Are you saying you were eating only 1000 calories a day and performing that level of activity?

ford2600

Keano wrote: »

Are you saying you were eating only 1000 calories a day and performing that level of activity?

On a 300/400 1000 cals consumed during course of activity, not including food before sleep; which typically wouldn't be that much.

On one day long events or multi day events appetite was usually very strong a day or two after event. Once you are careful around getting some protein in there is no big issue; @12% body fat a couple of days in a deficit is no big deal.

All that is on the assumption you have good metabolic health/flexibility and your diet in the long term is good.

silverharp

Macy0161 wrote: »

Plenty of people making money selling books and diets based upon IF and Ketogenic diets, plus the academic prestige, if the benefits could be proven. I really don't buy(?) the conspiracy reason it hasn't been proven. Like most of the diets that have done the trials, it ultimately comes down to calorie deficit.

I don't believe I'm a complete naysayer - I've read up on potential benefits of IF, affects on metabolism, gut health, reduction of excess skin, and the evidence just isn't there yet to convince me. It's interesting and I'm not saying it won't ultimately be proven, but we're not there yet.


Yes, but that is not the same as IF. Surely the traditional eating times were morning - middle of the day - evening (darkness). I'd guess that was governed by daylight rather than time, so any in built fast would depend on the time of year.

There is a lot of money in diabetes and the big food companies have an incentive not to rock the boat if not actively distract, where do you think “eat X as part of a healthy diet” comes from?, its hardly a conspiracy to suggest that there would be resistance to suggest the radical idea that diet caused the problem and diet could fix it, it would make a lot of professionals look silly for a start. Coke is going to have put money to get them research to say that sugar isn’t that bad , whoever makes pasta will be doing the same etc.

Of course everything comes back to a calorie deficit but most people are locked into the idea that it has to be low fat and many meals of small portions. Its why people have the attitude that a diet is something you get on and eventually get off , which is why most people fail and end up a larger weight a few years down the road. As a species obesity shouldn’t be a problem, the only reason people overeat or manically have to record everything in their fitbit is that they are eating the wrong types of food, either processed which overrides satiety or combining too many types of food. If people only ate in season food ,or that grew or was raised locally they wouldn’t have to think twice about it

Macy0161 wrote: »

Yes, but that is not the same as IF. Surely the traditional eating times were morning - middle of the day - evening (darkness). I'd guess that was governed by daylight rather than time, so any in built fast would depend on the time of year.

They werent a grazing society is the point, their word for breakfast is petit déjeuner whereas their lunch is déjeuner, alot of french would just have a coffee for breakfast or something small so in a very general sense breakfast isnt the most important meal of the day, it was optional and lunch was where it was at.

frozenfrozen

I know someone who thinks he is keto.

Eats crisps and chocolate etc but then when he goes out for food will order a burger without the bun.

Keto only works with intermittent fasting in my mind, you are getting your body out of the habit of using carbs for energy. How can you do that if you're constantly supplying it with food.. by all means eat your required calories with low carb food but at least give your body a chance to access fat stores for energy

Alf Veedersane

Graces7 wrote: »

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 .

Or you could not eat a breakfast and eat something perfectly fine mid-morning like lots of people do.

If you eat a bowl of porridge at 8am and I eat a bowl of porridge at 11.30, there is no difference (both bowls of porridge being exactly the same).

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

seamus wrote: »

It's conditioning really. I didn't eat breakfast for years and I would always have said that I just wasn't hungry at breakfast time.

At one stage I basically started forcing myself to have something when I got up, and after a few weeks it was totally normal. Now I'd be hungry if I didn't have something within an hour of getting up.

I'm pretty sure if I stopped having breakfast for about a month, I'd get used to it.

Being a "non-breakfast eater" is not a personality thing or a predisposition thing. It's just a habit. One you can break - if you want to. If it suits you not to, then bull on.

I didn’t eat breakfast for most of secondary school because I had an eating disorder. But I was always starving at breakfast time and should have eaten at that time. The disorder was what stopped me. My body never got used to not having breakfast. So I believe people when they say they have no appetite for breakfast.

And based on Irish societal norms, the notion that people are conditioned to not eat breakfast doesn’t make sense to me. Ireland doesn’t have a culture that encourages eschewing breakfast. Or any meal really. Some of the non-breakfast eaters I know are and were friends and most of them talked about the horror of having to force breakfast down as children because it’s The Most Important Meal Of The DayTM. They didn’t get used to it.

I don’t buy at all that it’s a habit or that you can train your body to not want breakfast, primarily based on my own experience of my body still craving breakfast every day after approximately three or four years of not eating it and supported by what I’ve been told by many people who don’t eat breakfast.

You were able to train yourself. But you simply can’t say that anyone can do that or the opposite through persistence. It’s not been my experience.

letsgo2018

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Everybody sleeps different.


Everybody eats different.


Everybody does different things.


Everybody fuels their body different.


Everybody is different.

Total BS. If that were true there would be no medical science

erica74

I can't skip breakfast because I have to eat within a certain time of taking my medication but if I ever have to eat a late breakfast (if I start work earlier than normal or am travelling), it fucks me up for the day and I end up eating all around me. My husband never eats breakfast and could go over 24 hours without eating (say, if he had his last meal yesterday at midday and still hadn't eaten today, which would be a fairly regular occurrence for him) but his body is just used to that.
He's also relatively healthy, slim, 41 without any ongoing illnesses, might get a bad cold once a year but that's it. I eat a very healthy diet but am riddled with illness.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I haven't had regular breakfasts since about 9 or 10 I'd imagine.

I can't eat before noon usually.

Doctor told it was fine, it's how my system functions, don't mess with it.

coffee_cake

Eat breakfast if you want and don't if you don't sure
Sometimes i am busy and cba so i just have a coffee

Naos

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

I don't know why it should make a difference in winter?

Oh, and another thing. With this idea, is one expected to eat less in total? What if I want to eat what I would eat over 15 hrs, in the space of 10 hrs??

Well, I meant more because it's almost Christmas time

Do you want to do it or just wondering?

UCD GroupThink

Naos wrote: »

Well, I meant more because it's almost Christmas time

Do you want to do it or just wondering?

Well I don't need to lose weight, and that's why most do it. I'd only be doing it if I thought it would be good in terms of longevity.

I eat healthy, I get vitamin D, I exercise consistently, I try to do ice baths and sauna, and I get enough sleep. So with all that, I'm not yet convinced it would be worth it!