Skipping breakfast?

UCD GroupThink · 10-12-2018 5:21pm

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 · 10-12-2018 5:24pm

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 · 10-12-2018 5:29pm

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.

10-12-2018 5:35pm

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 · 10-12-2018 5:39pm

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 · 10-12-2018 5:50pm

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

10-12-2018 5:56pm

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 · 10-12-2018 6:07pm

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 · 10-12-2018 6:12pm

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 · 10-12-2018 6:28pm

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.

Naos · 10-12-2018 6:35pm

Originally Posted by Naos View Post
"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

Dr. Rhonda Patrick also mentions that light will start your system...

Originally Posted by Naos View Post
"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.

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6KClPkotxM
Are you sure? She argues that very point near the start of this video.

You're correct - I misread your post.

Dial Hard · 10-12-2018 6:42pm

Man there's a lot of generalising and bad science in this thread. Breakfast is not some kind of magic bullet whereby eating it automatically equals a good choice. A bad breakfast is going to do a lot more damage than no breakfast. Likewise I know plenty of people who are religious porridge every morning types whose overall diet leaves an awful lot to be desired.

There's no point in looking at any one meal in isolation when examining food habits and lifestyle in general. Breakfast is no more or less valuable or important than any other meal but it has achieved an almost talismanic quality in many people's minds.

AllForIt · 10-12-2018 6:45pm

completedit wrote: »

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.

Thats pretty good and the fact your lean means your fine with even 2 oranges. A lot better than orange juice too.

AllForIt · 10-12-2018 6:48pm

I used to houseshare with an obese 26yo woman. She had toast with panda chocolate spread for breakfast every morning. YUCK!
She'd be fine skipping breakfast.

UCD GroupThink · 10-12-2018 6:48pm

Naos wrote: »

Dr. Rhonda Patrick also mentions that light will start your system...

So you're saying that it's better to fast towards the end of the day than the beginning??

I didn't hear her mention light. Did she mention that somewhere else?

rogieop · 10-12-2018 6:50pm

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.

The only way to gain weight is to consume more calories than you burn. simple.

yoke · 10-12-2018 7:16pm

rogieop wrote: »

The only way to gain weight is to consume more calories than you burn. simple.

I think the whole point of this thread is to try and figure out if having breakfast has other effects such as predisposing your body to burn more calories over the day, or predisposing your body to be less hungry overall during the day so it becomes easier to eat less.

I think you’ll need to do a proper scientific study on this and tell us the results, I doubt anyone really knows the answer without that.

For anecdotes, there’s always a counter example - eg. for all the people saying medieval farm labourers couldn’t function without a bowl of porridge in the morning - I’m not so sure. I personally find it easier to do a couple of hours of hard training without having a meal after I wake up, compared to if I have a meal I feel full and unable to train as hard. I do binge eat after training though which is the same thing sumo wrestlers do apparently, so I’m not sure if my skipping breakfast helps or hinders my occasional efforts to cut weight. I’m in my late 30s and my weight has been relatively stable over the past 15 years

Sunflower 27 · 10-12-2018 7:25pm

Dial Hard wrote: »

Man there's a lot of generalising and bad science in this thread. Breakfast is not some kind of magic bullet whereby eating it automatically equals a good choice. A bad breakfast is going to do a lot more damage than no breakfast. Likewise I know plenty of people who are religious porridge every morning types whose overall diet leaves an awful lot to be desired.

There's no point in looking at any one meal in isolation when examining food habits and lifestyle in general. Breakfast is no more or less valuable or important than any other meal but it has achieved an almost talismanic quality in many people's minds.

Exactly. Skipping breakfast will not make EVERY person overeat mid-morning.

Just like a big breakfast will not stop ALL people snacking.

These are really lazy, annoying posts.

Dial Hard · 10-12-2018 7:26pm

yoke wrote:

I think youâ€™ll need to do a proper scientific study on this and tell us the results, I doubt anyone really knows the answer without that.

There have been studies done but I'm not sure how vigorous they were in terms of controls, adjusting for lifestyle factors etc. For example, I'd be more interested in seeing a study entirely comprised of people with healthy weights and seeing how many of them are breakfast eaters and how many aren't, rather than a completely randomised sample, where statistically the majority are going to be overweight anyway, given current rates.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-12-2018 7:33pm

Dial Hard wrote: »

There have been studies done but I'm not sure how vigorous they were in terms of controls, adjusting for lifestyle factors etc. For example, I'd be more interested in seeing a study entirely comprised of people with healthy weights and seeing how many of them are breakfast eaters and how many aren't, rather than a completely randomised sample, where statistically the majority are going to be overweight anyway, given current rates.

I'd wonder that too. The gold-standard is apparently peer-reviewed journal articles but my course in college included journal club, a tutorial series devoted to critiquing peer-reviewed articles. Some dubious papers do make it through the review system.

Naos · 10-12-2018 7:46pm

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

So you're saying that it's better to fast towards the end of the day than the beginning??

I didn't hear her mention light. Did she mention that somewhere else?

It was mentioned at the start.

To be honest, when to start really depends. For example, I fast during the day and have my first meal around 2pm. The reason being that once I eat, I tend to want to keep eating. If I was to eat at 8am, I'd be peckish all day.

Probably the wrong season to be trying it but I'd suggest you give it a shot one day.

I'd suggest fast at the weekend first so you won't be embarrassed by the hunger noises, after a few days it just stops.

Eat a low carb/high protein/high fat meal as your last meal on a Friday night around 9pm and then don't eat until around 1pm Sat. Do similar on the Sunday. Then try to do it during the working week.

Do it for one week and see how you feel. You won't die. You won't pass out. You won't get fat. You won't get skinny. Just try it.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 10-12-2018 7:47pm

I posted a link to the daily mail above about this subject. Findings were:

Eating breakfast can kickstart digestion and fire up our metabolism
Helps regulate blood sugar levels and can improve exercise performance
However People who skip breakfast tend to eat fewer calories over the whole day (so they don’t over eat at lunch)
But they have less energy and may unconsciously become less active

And also

Trials of people who were selected into breakfast and non breakfast groups didn’t show any differences in weight gain or loss when one group was compared to the other.
However in the general population skippers of breakfast tended to be heavier

So, a mixed review.

letsgo2018 · 10-12-2018 7:50pm

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 .

LOL:pac::pac:

letsgo2018 · 10-12-2018 7:51pm

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.

More Bull**** :pac::pac::pac:

Franz Von Peppercorn · 10-12-2018 7:55pm

letsgo2018 wrote: »

LOL:pac::pac:

Convincing.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-12-2018 8:09pm

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.

I like breakfast myself but have known so many people throughout my life who just have no appetite for breakfast. The thought of it made some of them even feel sick. So they’re not going to be miserably struggling along on an empty stomach until lunchtime. I don’t know why people struggle to understand that. And some would break the fast at elevenses so that’s not very long to wait at all.

And of the people I’ve known who don’t eat breakfast, plenty were slim. I’d say the overweight percentage of non-breakfast eaters probably matches the general population overweight percentage.

I’ve always felt sorry for non-breakfast eaters in this regard. People pontificating to them to force themselves to eat a meal they don’t want to eat. The opinion on it all seems to be changing a bit to “eat when you feel ready to”. Much better. You mentioned “health nutters” in your post. Well, to be honest, it seems to me that health nuttiness drove the “breakfast is the most important meal of the day” mantra.

letsgo2018 · 10-12-2018 8:17pm

There is so much garbage been written on this thread by people who think they know what they are talking about but havent a friggen clue. It all boils down to their ignorance of the words 'starvation' and 'hunger'. Firstly starvation or starving has nothing to do with the time between meals. Starving or Starvation is muscle wasting and this can only occur in very low bodyfat levels low teens for women and single digit bodyfat for men so its not ever anything that happens in between meals. Also hunger is not that tummy grumping food withdrawal feeling one may get when they havent eaten in a few hours or when they have denied their body a meal when its used to getting it. True hunger is mental and cant be experienced in a few hours . Its days and can be up to weeks if you have enough fat on you .Lastly people forget that we store fat for a reason , FAT IS FOOD PEOPLE and not only is it the most calorie dense macro with 9 cals /g but stored bodyfat also contains essential nutrients . The mass availibility of food coupled with the peoples ability to be inactive is in historic terms a very modern concept. Human beings are meant to fast because of our ability to store fat which tieds us over until we were forced to actively go and hunt and kill our next meal . If human beings werent able to store bodyfat or fast we would have become extinct 1000s of years ago. There was no mr Kellog around back then. Also to add its in a fasted state when people have most energy. The fight or flight hormone Ghrelin is fired up which gives us the energy to be focused and alert, that coupled with being in ketosis and running on stored bodyfat . Heres something to consider, how will ye all feel after your christmas dinner this year? You will have just eaten 1000s of calories but will you be full of energy, Nope. The massive surge in the hormone Insulin will make everyone sleepy and just fit to flake out on the couch

Franz Von Peppercorn · 10-12-2018 8:27pm

Most of the faddish replies on the thread tend to come from the non breakfast eaters, though.

Noveight · 10-12-2018 8:36pm

Couldn’t ever skip breakfast.

Usually have a bowl of porridge around 7:30, that keeps me going until midday.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-12-2018 8:38pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Most of the faddish replies on the thread tend to come from the non breakfast eaters, though.

Well, I’m sticking up for non-breakfast eaters and I like breakfast.

Have you ever had a meal put in front of you when you’re not remotely hungry? Say, someone made you a meal, not realising you had already eaten. Well, it’s been explained to me by some non-breakfast eaters that that’s the level of lack of appetite we’re dealing with. Total madness to expect that person to eat breakfast. And it’s not a new faddy thing. I’m 35 and have known non-breakfast eaters my whole life.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 10-12-2018 8:39pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, I’m sticking up for non-breakfast eaters and I like breakfast.

Have you ever had a meal put in front of you when you’re not remotely hungry? Say, someone made you a meal, not realising you had already eaten. Well, it’s been explained to me by some non-breakfast eaters that that’s the level of lack of appetite we’re dealing with. Total madness to expect that person to eat breakfast. And it’s not a new faddy thing. I’m 35 and have known non-breakfast eaters my whole life.

Yes. When I didn’t eat breakfast. :-)

However my story is an anecdote not a statistic. So I won’t go into it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-12-2018 8:42pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Yes. When I didn’t eat breakfast. :-)

However my story is an anecdote not a statistic. So I won’t go into it.

Well, for some, that lack of appetite at breakfast time is every single day.

Dalomanakora · 10-12-2018 8:47pm

Between the stuff saying breakfast is the most important meal of the day, and other stuff saying intermittent fasting is great, fcuk it all and do what suits you.

I don't eat breakfast. Everyone tells me I should, it kicks starts metabolism, etc etc.

Yet I've lost 4.5 stone in just over a year, have plenty of energy, work on my feet all day, eat healthy lunches and tbh I enjoy my food more if I'm hungry.

Do what suits you. If you fast til midday but then eat junk food, then start having a healthy breakfast. If you're skipping breakfast but eating healthy food within your calorie allowance for the day, then carry on.

I don't like breakfast so I won't eat it. Hasn't done me any harm.

UCD GroupThink · 10-12-2018 9:33pm

Dalomanakora wrote: »

I don't like breakfast so I won't eat it. Hasn't done me any harm.

What if you're stomach was rumbling?

Dalomanakora · 10-12-2018 9:48pm

UCD GroupThink wrote: »

What if you're stomach was rumbling?

It doesn't usually til 11, and I take my break around 12. If it does before then, I drink some water. I very rarely feel hungry in the morning though.

DS86DS · 11-12-2018 8:05am

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.

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.

seamus · 11-12-2018 8:54am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, I’m sticking up for non-breakfast eaters and I like breakfast.

Have you ever had a meal put in front of you when you’re not remotely hungry? Say, someone made you a meal, not realising you had already eaten. Well, it’s been explained to me by some non-breakfast eaters that that’s the level of lack of appetite we’re dealing with. Total madness to expect that person to eat breakfast. And it’s not a new faddy thing. I’m 35 and have known non-breakfast eaters my whole life.

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.

UCD GroupThink · 11-12-2018 10:29am

Naos wrote: »

It was mentioned at the start.

To be honest, when to start really depends. For example, I fast during the day and have my first meal around 2pm. The reason being that once I eat, I tend to want to keep eating. If I was to eat at 8am, I'd be peckish all day.

Probably the wrong season to be trying it but I'd suggest you give it a shot one day.

I'd suggest fast at the weekend first so you won't be embarrassed by the hunger noises, after a few days it just stops.

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??

Keano · 11-12-2018 10:38am

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??

If your goal is weight loss and you eat 2000 calories, it doesn't matter if you eat them over 10 or 15 hours. Once you are in a calorie deficit you will lose weight.

11-12-2018 10:44am

Dalomanakora wrote: »

................ fcuk it all and do what suits you.

I don't eat breakfast. Everyone tells me I should, it kicks starts metabolism, etc etc.

Yet I've lost 4.5 stone in just over a year, have plenty of energy, work on my feet all day, eat healthy lunches and tbh I enjoy my food more if I'm hungry.

Do what suits you..............

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.

Boom_Bap · 11-12-2018 11:03am

Everybody sleeps different.

Everybody eats different.

Everybody does different things.

Everybody fuels their body different.

Everybody is different.

Macy0161 · 11-12-2018 11:09am

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 · 11-12-2018 11:25am

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 · 11-12-2018 11:26am

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.

11-12-2018 11:32am

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 · 11-12-2018 11:33am

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 · 11-12-2018 11:37am

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 · 11-12-2018 11:47am

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.

11-12-2018 12:03pm

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 · 11-12-2018 12:11pm

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....

Skipping breakfast?

Comments