nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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:

UCD GroupThink

Augeo wrote: »

Total calories in compared to total calories required will dictate weight gain or loss ........... when you eat the calories makes little to no difference.

Who told you that?

frozenfrozen

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 .

This is not true

If you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight

UCD GroupThink

Graces7 wrote: »

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

Well only a stupid person wouldn't realise that that defeats the purpose.

[Deleted User]

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

Who told you that?

I have an understanding of basic science.

A kilocalorie is 4184 joules.
Joule is the unit of work or energy.

The human body is essentially a machine that uses an amount of energy .......... if you consume more than you use it's stored as fat. Consume less than you use and the body takes energy from other sources (fat if it's available is ideal)

Total intake and total use as I said are the important factors.
As I said, when you eat the calories makes little to no difference .......... instead of asking me who told me this perhaps make a point yourself, explain it and we can judge are you talking through your hoop or not.

The formula for total calories burned per mile of running is 0.75 times your weight in pounds. At this rate a 200-pound person burns about 150 calories per mile. That's not much really. If you reckon when you consume your calories has anywhere near the impact that a 200 lb person running a mile has on their energy usage than you are off your tree IMO.

150 calories burnt is about 5% of a pound of fat. A 150 calories per day deficit below maintenance would see a pound of weight lost in 20 days.

Naos

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.

That's not true. You can eat breakfast and still eat junk midmorning, it's observed around offices everywhere.

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

Again, untrue. Your body doesn't just slowdown because you've not eaten for a few hours. In fat, restricting calories is what causes a slow down in your metabolism, not fasting.

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

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.

Where did you hear that? I do not believe this to be true.

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 was disproved years ago.

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.

You don't be starving once you adapt to not eating breakfast. In fact, quite the opposite - the majority of those that fast in the morning tend to be more focused and have more energy.

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.

Can you explain that?

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

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.

No, they would not argue that. Why would you think that?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Augeo wrote: »

I have an understanding of basic science.

A kilocalorie is 4184 joules.
Joule is the unit of work or energy.

The human body is essentially a machine that uses an amount of energy .......... if you consume more than you use it's stored as fat. Consume less than you use and the body takes energy from other sources (fat if it's available is ideal)

Total intake and total use as I said are the important factors.
As I said, when you eat the calories makes little to no difference .......... instead of asking me who told me this perhaps make a point yourself, explain it and we can judge are you talking through your hoop or not.

Except the body’s metabolism is sometimes dependent on whether it’s getting a regular supply of food or not. It’s not hugely significant - you can’t eat a large Irish breakfast - but it can be significant to about a 15% increase. So eat an egg.

The other thing is breakfast skippers tend not to exercise. If you are going to exercise in the morning you’d probably have a breakfast. Even people who exercise at lunch don’t do it on a empty stomach, and most people eat after their lunchtime yoga or run, not before. The statistics do in fact show that people who skip breakfast are less healthy and more likely to do less exercise especially in the morning even if it’s just a walk to work. However if you run a trial on people randomly no effect (gain or loss) is associated with having, or skipping, breakfast.

That’s probably a selection issue. In the general population (absent this trial) the people more inclined to morning exercise will eat breakfast.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3447870/Should-eat-breakfast-Does-really-kick-start-metabolism-skipping-help-lose-weight-Experts-reveal-all.html

[Deleted User]

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Except the body’s metabolism is sometimes dependent on whether it’s getting a regular supply of food or not. It’s not hugely significant - you can’t eat a large Irish breakfast - but it can be significant to about a 15% increase. So eat an egg. .................

That's my point

UCD GroupThink

Naos wrote: »

"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."

Where did you hear that? I do not believe this to be true.

Listen from the 7:20 mark. Please come back to me and tell me what you think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6KClPkotxM

Naos wrote: »

"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."

No, they would not argue that. Why would you think that?

Are you sure? She argues that very point near the start of this video.

Sunflower 27

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 .

Utter BS .

Not everyone that skips breakfast snacks on junk. Plenty of people have self control.

Skipping breakfast is one way I can guarantee weight loss. I need my evening meal, but can easily forego breakfast and often do to keep calories down.

completedit

Depends what you mean by breakfast I guess. My breakfast is a couple of oranges and a small bowl of porridge. Pretty ****e but I'm not that hungry but I'm already lean, not trying to lose weight so have to eat.